Va. Code » Title 8.01. Civil Remedies and Procedure » Chapter 4. Limitations of Actions » Article 1. In General
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-231 (2026)

Commonwealth not within statute of limitations

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

No statute of limitations which shall not in express terms apply to the Commonwealth shall be deemed a bar to any proceeding by or on behalf of the same.

Code 1950, § 8-35; 1958, c. 221; 1977, c. 617; 1988, c. 544.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases, 1982–2016 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 385 S.E.2d 865 (Va. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 385 S.E.2d 865 (Va. 1989). · cites it 36× “Further, the General Assembly has codified the rule in Code § 8.01-231, which provides: No statute of limitations which shall not in express terms apply to the Commonwealth shall be deemed a bar to any proceeding by or on behalf of the same.”
Hensel Phelps Constr. Co. v. Thompson Masonry Contractor, Inc., 791 S.E.2d 734 (Va. 2016). · cites it 8× “" There is no explicit provision in the prime contract relating to the applicable statute of limitations period, but the parties do not dispute that, in accordance with Code § 8.01-231, no limitations period would apply to Virginia Tech as a Commonwealth agency.”
Burns v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Stafford Cnty., 315 S.E.2d 856 (Va. 1984). · cites it 8× “Code § 8-35, since recodified as Code § 8.01-231, provided: No statute of limitations which shall not in express terms apply to the Commonwealth shall be deemed a bar to any proceedings by or on behalf of the same.”
Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Pub. Facilities Dist. v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols-Kiewit Constr. Co., 165 Wash. 2d 679 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 3× “243, 243-46 (1997); Va. Code § 8.01-231. 8 ¶52 Likewise, our stadium act was an enabling act that authorized, but did not mandate, the creation of the PFD in “a county with a population of one million or more” and empowered, but did not require, it to “acquire, construct, own,…”
Barr v. SW Rodgers Co., Inc., 537 S.E.2d 620 (Va. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “Although no statute of limitations applies to the Commonwealth unless the statute expressly so provides, see Code § 8.01-231, we note that fifteen months is well within the statute of limitations for the filing of a civil action.”
Richmond Metro. Auth. v. McDevitt Street Bovis, Inc., 42 Va. Cir. 243 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1997). · cites it 11× “See Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-231 . It further claims that the statute of repose does not apply to causes of action such as those asserted here.”
Bouldin v. Commonwealth, 355 S.E.2d 352 (Va. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 2× “*172 Code § 8.01-231 provides that “[n]o statute of limitation which shall not in express terms apply to the Commonwealth shall be deemed a bar to any proceeding by or on behalf of the same.”
Bradford v. Nature Conservancy, 294 S.E.2d 866 (Va. 1982). · cites it 2× “Code § 8.01-231. For these reasons, the suit is not barred by the statute of limitations.”
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Pross v. Bd. of Supervisors, 303 S.E.2d 887 (Va. 1983). · cites it 2× “It makes no distinction between so-called “pure” statutes of limitation (those which time-restrict the availability of a remedy) and “special” limitations (those prescribed by statute as an element of a newly-created right).”
Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. M. L. Whitlow, Inc., 286 S.E.2d 230 (Va. 1982). · cites it 4× “As its primary argument, the Board contends that statutes of limitation do not apply to it, relying on Code § 8.01-231 which provides: “No statute of limitations which shall not in express terms apply to the Commonwealth shall be deemed a bar to any proceeding by or on behalf of…”
Smith v. Liberty Nursing Home, Inc., 522 S.E.2d 890 (Va. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “Therefore, because the statute applies to the Commonwealth, it is irrelevant, for our purposes, whether the statute, if mandatory, is one of limitation or repose.”
Middlesex Cnty. v. Hamilton, 28 Va. Cir. 283 (Williamsburg and James Cir. Ct. 1992). · cites it 5× “” Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-231 (Michie Supp. 1991).”
Show all 18 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.