Va. Code » Title 17.1. Courts of Record » Chapter 5. Circuit Courts » Article 1. Establishment; Jurisdiction; Etc.
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 17.1-513.2 (2026)

Use of telephonic communication systems or electronic video and audio communication systems to conduct hearing

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in any civil proceeding in which a party or a witness is incarcerated or when otherwise authorized by the court, the court may, in its discretion, conduct any hearing using a telephonic communication system or an electronic audio and video communication system to provide for the appearance of any parties and witnesses. Any electronic audio and video communication system used to conduct such a hearing shall meet the standards set forth in subsection B of § 19.2-3.1.

2001, c. 513.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: Deborah R. Magid v. John J. O'Keefe, Jr., No. 1814223 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2023).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Deborah R. Magid v. John J. O'Keefe, Jr., No. 1814223 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2023). · cites it 2× “Magid claims that by filing in general district court O’Keefe “conferred exclusive original subject matter jurisdiction upon that tribunal” and thus that the case was “assigned to some other tribunal” under -3- Code § 17.1-513.2 For the following reasons, we decline to consider…”
Dwayne Myers v. David Dellinger, No. 0568244 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 9, 2025). · cites it 2× “4 Having found that the circuit court should have granted the continuance, we do not reach father’s argument that he should have been permitted to testify by telephone pursuant to Code § 17.1-513.2. -8-”
Gino v. Jackson v. Patricia Anne Jackson, No. 2481094 (Va. Ct. App. June 1, 2010). · cites it 2× “On appeal, husband argues that Code § 17.1-513.2 provided the trial court with authority to allow husband to participate via video conference.”
Kenneth Jackson v. Annette Jackson, No. 2568042 (Va. Ct. App. May 31, 2005). · cites it 2× “He did not argue he was denied a full and fair hearing in violation of Code § 17.1-513.2 and of his “Constitutional right to due process and equal protection under the law.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.