The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Casey v. Merck & Co., Inc.
No. 111438Supreme Court of Virginia
111438 Casey v. Merck & Co., Inc. 03/02/2012 In response to two certified questions accepted pursuant to Article VI, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia and Rule 5:40, arising from lawsuits in the federa…
Clerk language is kept verbatim. Vote Files does not infer who is winning.The movement
Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.
The proof
The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.
111438 Casey v. Merck & Co., Inc. 03/02/2012 In response to two certified questions accepted pursuant to Article VI, Section 1 of…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First seen
- Oct 4, 2026
- Last entry
- Mar 2, 2012
No bill or executive-order citation is attached to this file.
Official docket
Case timeline
The clerk's wording is shown verbatim and linked to the court's own document page where available.
Docket entry
111438 Casey v. Merck & Co., Inc. 03/02/2012 In response to two certified questions accepted pursuant to Article VI, Section 1 of the Constitution of Virginia and Rule 5:40, arising from lawsuits in the federal courts of New York, on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Court responds that (1) Virginia law does not permit equitable tolling of a state statute of limitations due to the pendency of a putative class action in another jurisdiction, and (2) Code § 8.01-229(E)(1) does not permit tolling of a state statute of limitations due to the pendency of a putative class action in another jurisdiction.
Open court document ↗Documents and links