Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-248
Personal actions for which no other limitation is specified
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Every personal action accruing on or after July 1, 1995, for which no limitation is otherwise prescribed, shall be brought within two years after the right to bring such action has accrued.
Code 1950, § 8-24; 1954, c. 589; 1973, c. 385; 1977, c. 617; 1995, c. 9.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 217
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: McMillion v. Dryvit Systems, Inc.
McMillion v. Dryvit Systems, Inc. (2001)
“Because we conclude that the limitation period in Code § 8.01-248 applies to a cause of action for false advertising, we will affirm the circuit court’s judgment sustaining a plea of the statute of limitations.”
Parker-Smith v. Sto Corp. (2001)
“Because we conclude that the period of limitation in Code § 8.01-248 applies to the false advertising claims, we will affirm the circuit court’s judgment sustaining pleas of the statute of limitations as to those counts.”
Michael v. Sentara Health System (1996)
“Michael further asserts that even if the one-year limit applies, her claim is still not barred because she suffered a constructive wrongful discharge on February 1,1995. a. Statute of limitations governing wrongful discharge cause of action The United States Court of Appeals for…”
Pigott v. Moran (1986)
“Section 8.01-248 provides: "Personal actions for which no other limitation is specified.”
Hansen v. Stanley Martin Companies, Inc. (2003)
“Nonetheless, as with the other claims previously examined, our inquiry is whether the record reflects any material issues of fact were genuinely in dispute as to whether the statute of limitations on the MCPA count expired before the Homeowners' motion for judgment was filed.”
School Bd. of County of York v. Nicely (1991)
“Because our decision that the one year statute of limitations provided in Code § 8.01-248 applies in this case rather than the limitations period under the VAPA is dispositive, we do not reach the other issues raised by the School Board in this appeal.”
Willard v. Moneta Building Supply, Inc. (2001)
“01-243(B) or by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Code § 8.01-248. Specifically, we must decide whether a loss of dissenters’ rights to demand payment for shares of stock constitutes an injury to property.”
Jones v. R. S. Jones & Associates, Inc. (1993)
“Va. Code § 8.01-248. Because the *5 plaintiff had not filed the cause of action within one year of the date of Ben Jones’ death, the court sustained the pleas of the statute of limitations and dismissed the plaintiff’s motion for judgment.”
Jordan v. Shands (1998)
“The defendants asserted in their special pleas that the plaintiff’s causes of action for false imprisonment and defamation were barred by Code § 8.01-248 which, at the time the plaintiff’s cause of action accrued, contained a one-year statute of limitations.”
Lavery v. Automation Management Consultants, Inc. (1987)
“Thereafter, both AMCI and Rehab Group moved to dismiss Lavery's suit on the ground that it was barred by the one-year statute of limitations contained in Code § 8.01-248. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.”
Purcell v. Tidewater Construction Corp. (1995)
“Tidewater responded that Purcell’s cause of action was barred because it was not filed within one year of his termination as required by the limitation period set out in Code § 8.01-248. 1 Purcell maintained that his cause of action was timely filed because it was an action for…”
Bader v. Central Fidelity Bank (1993)
“Bader’s cause of action against the bank was barred by the one-year statute of limitations for “personal actions for which no other limitation is specified,” contained in Code § 8.01-248. The trial court granted Central Fidelity’s motion for summary judgment because “[i]n order…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-248(4) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-248(D) — 1 case
Ryland v. Manor Care, Inc. (2003)
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.