Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-184 (2026)

Power to issue declaratory judgments

✓ current as of May 2026

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

In cases of actual controversy, circuit courts within the scope of their respective jurisdictions shall have power to make binding adjudications of right, whether or not consequential relief is, or at the time could be, claimed and no action or proceeding shall be open to objection on the ground that a judgment order or decree merely declaratory of right is prayed for. Controversies involving the interpretation of deeds, wills, and other instruments of writing, statutes, municipal ordinances and other governmental regulations, may be so determined, and this enumeration does not exclude other instances of actual antagonistic assertion and denial of right.

Code 1950, § 8-578; 1977, c. 617.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 221 cases (32 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Shelor Motor Co., Inc. v. Miller, 544 S.E.2d 345 (Va. 2001).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Shelor Motor Co., Inc. v. Miller, 544 S.E.2d 345 (Va. 2001). · cites it 16× “Miller, Commissioner of the Revenue for Montgomery County, in support of her demurrer to the bills of complaint was that the declaratory judgment statute, Code § 8.01-184, is not the "appropriate vehicle to determine the validity of tax assessments.”

Chapman v. Clarendon Nat'l Ins., 299 F. Supp. 2d 559 (E.D. Va. 2004). · cites it 14× “Va.Code Ann. § 8.01-184 (2000). 2 . Defendants Clarendon, Empire, and Scottsdale are hereinafter referred to collectively as "the three insurers.”

Bell v. Saunders, 677 S.E.2d 39 (Va. 2009). · cites it 10× “Code § 8.01-184 states: "In cases of actual controversy, circuit courts within the scope of their respective jurisdictions shall have power to make binding adjudications of right, whether or not consequential relief is, or at the time could be, claimed and no action or…”

Lafferty v. Sch. Bd. of Fairfax Cnty., 798 S.E.2d 164 (Va. 2017). · cites it 4× “This appeal concerns standing under the Declaratory Judgment Act, Code §§ 8.01-184 through -191. We address whether a student at a public high school, by and through his parents as next friends, has standing to sue the school board based on his alleged distress over potential…”

Cupp v. Bd. of Supervisors, 227 Va. 580 (Va. 1984). · cites it 4× “To resolve this issue we must focus upon the Declaratory Judgment Act, Code §§ 8.01-184 et seq. According to Code § 8.”

Miller v. Highland Cnty., 650 S.E.2d 532 (Va. 2007). · cites it 4× “In addressing these arguments, we consider both the general nature of a declaratory judgment action and the particular language of Code § 15.”

Cherrie v. Virginia Health Servs., 787 S.E.2d 855 (Va. 2016). · cites it 2× “The estates next turn to the Declaratory Judgment Act, Code § 8.01-184 to Code § 8.01-191, as the statutory vehicle to give them a private right of action to enforce 12 VAC § 5-371-140(G).”

Cupp v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Fairfax Cnty., 318 S.E.2d 407 (Va. 1984). · cites it 4× “Review is limited to "cases of actual controversy," which are described later in the same provision as instances of "actual antagonistic assertion and denial of right.”

Deerfield v. City of Hampton, 724 S.E.2d 724 (Va. 2012). · cites it 6× “BACKGROUND The Committee filed suit for declaratory judgment against the City and POH in the Circuit Court for the City of Hampton, pursuant to Code §§ 8.01-184 and -186. As alleged in its complaint, the Committee's dispute with the City and POH arose over actions of the City to…”

Bd. OF SUP'RS, ETC. v. Southland Corp., 297 S.E.2d 718 (Va. 1982). · cites it 4× “Thus, argues the County, Southland was merely requesting an advisory opinion of the court, and failed to show that there was an “actual antagonistic assertion and denial of right,” so as to confer declaratory judgment jurisdiction upon the court pursuant to Code § 8.”

Logan v. City Council of City of Roanoke, 659 S.E.2d 296 (Va. 2008). · cites it 4× “The circuit court held that Logan could seek a declaratory judgment under Code § 8.01-184 to determine the adequacy of standards for granting exceptions under the Subdivision Ordinance, and the propriety of the particular decisions Townsend made concerning the Wilton subdivision…”

Treacy v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 500 S.E.2d 503 (Va. 1998). · cites it 6× “Smithfield argues that these actions created a controversy between the Commonwealth and Smithfield regarding the effect of the Special Order and the 1992 Permit.”

Show all 221 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.