Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 48-3 (2026)

Permitting continuation of nuisance; presentment against premises

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If any such nuisance be upon premises the owner of which did not create or cause such nuisance, but permitted its continuation, such owner shall, for the purposes of this chapter, be deemed responsible for such nuisance, and if such owner be not a resident or citizen of this Commonwealth, or one whose residence is not known, such presentment shall be against the premises upon which such nuisance is.

Code 1919, § 1520.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Jordan v. Commonwealth, 549 S.E.2d 621 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jordan v. Commonwealth, 549 S.E.2d 621 (Va. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 12× “The trial court convicted Charles Jordan and Elaine Jordan of maintaining a public nuisance in violation of Code § 48-3, 1 fined them $5,000 each, and ordered them to abate the nuisance.”

Am. Exp. Lines, Inc. v. Alvez, 446 U.S. 274 (1980). · cites it 2× “Va. Code § 48-3 -19a (1976); Moran v. Quality Aluminum Casting Co.”

Gelletly v. Commonwealth, 430 S.E.2d 722 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “, appellant, was convicted of maintaining a common nuisance in violation of Code §§ 48-3 and 48-5. He contends that the trial court erred (1) in admitting certain evidence concerning the possession and use of firearms by and against some of his patrons, and (2) in questioning…”

Meadows v. Belknap, 483 S.E.2d 826 (W. Va. 1997). “Va.Code § 48-3^1 (1923). The latter statute provides in relevant part: When a .”

Gelletyly v. Com., 430 S.E.2d 722 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “He contends that the trial court erred (1) in admitting certain evidence concerning the possession and use of firearms by and against some of his patrons, and (2) in questioning witness Smith about hearsay statements, made by the police, that appellant would get no more than "a…”

Southampton Quarry LLC v. Brian T. Ford (Va. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “270, 273-76 (2001) (“When placed in its ancient common law context, Code § 48-3 can only be understood to authorize prosecution of the person or entity that holds actual title to the property on which a nuisance continues.”

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.