Va. Code » Title 8.01. Civil Remedies and Procedure » Chapter 1. General Provisions As to Civil Cases
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-1 (2026)

How proceedings may be in actions pending when title takes effect

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Except as may be otherwise provided in § 8.01-256 of Chapter 4 (§ 8.01-228 et seq.) (Limitations of Actions), all provisions of this title shall apply to causes of action which arose prior to the effective date of any such provisions; provided, however, that the applicable law in effect on the day before the effective date of the particular provisions shall apply if in the opinion of the court any particular provision (i) may materially change the substantive rights of a party (as distinguished from the procedural aspects of the remedy) or (ii) may cause the miscarriage of justice.

Code 1950, § 8-2; 1977, c. 617.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2025 · leading case: Harris v. DiMattina, 462 S.E.2d 338 (Va. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Harris v. DiMattina, 462 S.E.2d 338 (Va. 1995). · cites it 44× “He argued that, under Code § 8.01-1, procedural statutory changes apply to causes of action arising before, as well as after, the effective date of the changes.”
Potomac Hosp. Corp. v. Dillon, 329 S.E.2d 41 (Va. 1985). · cites it 20× “Dillon acknowledges that the statute did not apply to causes of action arising before the date of its enactment because the General Assembly, in Code § 8.01-1, [2] expressly prohibited such application.”
Starnes v. Cayouette, 419 S.E.2d 669 (Va. 1992). · cites it 12× “Code § 8.01-1. In what became the "Limitations of Actions" chapter of the new title, the 1977 Act further provided that "[i]f a cause of action, as to which no action .”
Congdon v. Congdon, 578 S.E.2d 833 (Va. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “2d 338, 343 (1995) (interpreting the duty imposed by Code § 8.01-1 on trial courts to prevent unjust results in the application of a new provision of law).”
Riddett v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 495 S.E.2d 819 (Va. 1998). · cites it 11× “” Building on this premise, the plaintiff contends the 1991 nonsuit tolling provisions are applicable to her cause of action by virtue of the provisions of Code § 8.01-1. That statute provides: “Except as may be otherwise provided in § 8.”
Goodstein v. Weinberg, 245 S.E.2d 140 (Va. 1978). · cites it 2× “This statute became effective on October 1,1977, more than ten months after final judgment in the trial court and almost three months after we granted the writ of error in this case.”
Shiflet v. Eller, 319 S.E.2d 750 (Va. 1984). “Specifically, § 8.01-1 provides for retroactive application of all provisions of the Title, unless a particular provision “may materially change the substantive rights of a party (as distinguished from the procedural aspects of the remedy) .”
Bd. of Supervisors v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 310 S.E.2d 445 (Va. 1983). · cites it 2× “” Indeed, as a matter of substantive law the statute would be saved by the provisions of Code § 8.01-1, if we are of opinion that the deletion may materially change the substantive rights of Safeco.”
Strickland v. Simpkins, 273 S.E.2d 539 (Va. 1981). · cites it 2× “01 and the exceptions thereto are set forth in Code § 8.01-1, the first section of Title 8.”
Gaynor. v. OB/GYN Specialists, Ltd., 51 F. Supp. 2d 718 (W.D. Va. 1999). · cites it 4× “) Va.Code § 8.01-1. Defendants confuse the retroactive applicability of the standard of care itself with the retroactive applicability of other aspects of the standard of care statute, which are purely procedural in nature.”
Stevens v. Hosp. Auth., 42 Va. Cir. 321 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1997). · cites it 4× “Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-1 (1992). Under this section, a court may retroactively apply a statute if application of that statute would neither materially change a party’s substantive rights nor cause a miscarriage of justice.”
Theodore v. Mundy, III v. Alison D. Mundy, 783 S.E.2d 535 (Va. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “2d 338, 343 (1995) (interpreting the duty imposed by Code § 8.01-1 on trial courts to prevent unjust results in the application of a new provision of law).”
Show all 30 citing cases →
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.