Paul Watson Enterprises, Inc. v. Miller & Smith Land, Inc.

Fairfax County Circuit Court

Paul Watson Enterprises, Inc. v. Miller & Smith Land, Inc.

27 Va. Cir. 139, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 156

CourtFairfax County Circuit Court

DecidedFebruary 23, 1992

DocketCase No. (Law) 108599

StatusPublished

This text of 27 Va. Cir. 139 (Paul Watson Enterprises, Inc. v. Miller & Smith Land, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Fairfax County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Paul Watson Enterprises, Inc. v. Miller & Smith Land, Inc., 27 Va. Cir. 139, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 156 (Va. Super. Ct. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

By Judge Rosemarie Annunziata

The matter before the Court is Plaintiff Paul Watson Enterprises, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, to Strike the Affirmative Defenses of the Defendant Miller and Smith Land, Inc. For the purposes of summary judgment, the Court is limited to the pleadings in this case and cannot consider the documents attached to the summary judgment motion filed by the plaintiff. Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3:18; see Janney v. Rappahannock Area Community Services Bd., 14 Va. Cir. 249, 250 (1988); Consolidated Healthcare v. Overseas Partners, Inc., 14 Va. Cir. 241, 242 (1988). After reviewing the pleadings, I find that a material fact remains in dispute as to whether the plaintiff had a real estate license at the time it contracted and performed the services for the defendant. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By Judge Rosemarie Annunziata

The matter before the Court is Plaintiff Paul Watson Enterprises, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment or, in the alternative, to Strike the Affirmative Defenses of the Defendant Miller and Smith Land, Inc. For the purposes of summary judgment, the Court is limited to the pleadings in this case and cannot consider the documents attached to the summary judgment motion filed by the plaintiff. Va. Sup. Ct. R. 3:18; see Janney v. Rappahannock Area Community Services Bd., 14 Va. Cir. 249, 250 (1988); Consolidated Healthcare v. Overseas Partners, Inc., 14 Va. Cir. 241, 242 (1988). After reviewing the pleadings, I find that a material fact remains in dispute as to whether the plaintiff had a real estate license at the time it contracted and performed the services for the defendant. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 Va. Cir. 139, 1992 Va. Cir. LEXIS 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-watson-enterprises-inc-v-miller-smith-land-inc-vaccfairfax-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack