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

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-234 (2026)

Repeal of limitation not to remove bar of statute

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

If, after a right of action or remedy is barred by a statute of limitations, the statute be repealed, the bar of the statute as to such right or remedy shall not be deemed to be removed by such repeal.

Code 1950, § 8-36; 1977, c. 617.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2022 · leading case: Starnes v. Cayouette, 419 S.E.2d 669 (Va. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Starnes v. Cayouette, 419 S.E.2d 669 (Va. 1992). · cites it 4× “Section 2936 of the Code of 1887, now Code § 8.01-234, has remained unchanged for more than a century.”
Sch. Bd. v. United States Gypsum Co., 360 S.E.2d 325 (Va. 1987). · cites it 2× “1 provides in full: Notwithstanding the provisions of § 8.01-234 or any other section in this chapter, every action against a manufacturer or supplier of asbestos or material containing asbestos brought by or on behalf of any agency of the Commonwealth incorporated for…”
In Re Chen, 351 B.R. 355 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2006). · cites it 2× “Va.Code (1950) § 8.01-234 provides that repeal of a statute of limitations does not remove the bar of the statute as to a right of action or a remedy barred before repeal.”
Saunders v. Hk Porter Co., Inc., 643 F. Supp. 198 (E.D. Va. 1986). · cites it 5× “An indication of state interest in the substantive rights associated with statutes of limitation is § 8.01-234 of the Code of Virginia, which provides that an action barred by a statute of limitations is not revived by repeal of that limitation provision.”
Millman v. Snyder, 65 Va. Cir. 62 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to Virginia Code § 8.01-234 personal injury actions are governed by the two-year limitations period.”
Alana v. Rose (W.D. Va. 2020). · cites it 3× “§ 8.01-234 (A). Based on the current record, the court also cannot find undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive by the movants here.”
Williams v. Joynes, 72 Va. Cir. 265 (Portsmouth Cir. Ct. 2006). · cites it 2× “The alleged malpractice is the failure of the defendants to timely (within the limitations set out in Virginia Code § 8.01-234(A)) file a lawsuit to enforce a claim of personal injury arising out of an auto accident that occurred in Fairfax County.”
Coward v. Woodson (W.D. Va. 2022). “Wiedemann’s summary judgment motion, he pulls in evidence of dental treatment encounters he had with the dentist during a previous incarceration at Augusta in 2017.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-234(A) — 3 cases
Alana v. Rose (W.D. Va. 2020). “§ 8.01-234 (A). Based on the current record, the court also cannot find undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive by the movants here.”
Williams v. Joynes, 72 Va. Cir. 265 (Portsmouth Cir. Ct. 2006). “The alleged malpractice is the failure of the defendants to timely (within the limitations set out in Virginia Code § 8.01-234(A)) file a lawsuit to enforce a claim of personal injury arising out of an auto accident that occurred in Fairfax County.”
Coward v. Woodson (W.D. Va. 2022). “Wiedemann’s summary judgment motion, he pulls in evidence of dental treatment encounters he had with the dentist during a previous incarceration at Augusta in 2017.”
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.