In any actions to which this chapter applies except those actions enumerated in Category A where preferred venue is specified, one or more of the following counties or cities shall be permissible forums, such forums being sometimes referred to as "Category B" in this title:
1. Wherein the defendant resides or has his principal place of employment or, if the defendant is not an individual, wherein its principal office or principal place of business is located;
2. Wherein the defendant has a registered office, has appointed an agent to receive process, or such agent has been appointed by operation of the law; or, in case of withdrawal from the Commonwealth by such defendant, wherein venue herein was proper at the time of such withdrawal;
3. Provided there exists any practical nexus to the forum including, but not limited to, the location of fact witnesses, plaintiffs, or other evidence to the action, wherein the defendant regularly conducts substantial business activity, or in the case of withdrawal from the Commonwealth by such defendant, wherein venue herein was proper at the time of such withdrawal;
4. Wherein the cause of action, or any part thereof, arose;
5. In actions to recover or partition personal property, whether tangible or intangible, the county or city:
a. Wherein such property is physically located; or
b. Wherein the evidence of such property is located;
c. And if subdivisions a and b do not apply, wherein the plaintiff resides.
6. In actions against a fiduciary as defined in § 8.01-2 appointed under court authority, the county or city wherein such fiduciary qualified;
7. In actions for improper message transmission or misdelivery wherein the message was transmitted or delivered or wherein the message was accepted for delivery or was misdelivered;
8. In actions arising based on delivery of goods, wherein the goods were received;
9. If there is no other forum available in subdivisions 1 through 8 of this category, then the county or city where the defendant has property or debts owing to him subject to seizure by any civil process; or
10. Wherein any of the plaintiffs reside if (i) all of the defendants are unknown or are nonresidents of the Commonwealth or if (ii) there is no other forum available under any other provisions of § 8.01-261 or this section.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, in actions in which an administrator has been appointed pursuant to § 64.2-454, permissible venue shall only lie in a county or city in which venue would have been properly laid if the person for whom such appointment is made had survived.
1977, c. 617; 1978, c. 414; 1979, c. 331; 1985, c. 213; 1999, c. 73; 2004, c. 979; 2013, cc. 71, 103; 2024, cc. 50, 340.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
100
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2024 · leading case:
Hawthorne v. VanMarter, 692 S.E.2d 226 (Va. 2010).
Hawthorne v. VanMarter, 692 S.E.2d 226 (Va. 2010).
· cites it 8× “In response, Guthrie asserted that the City of Roanoke was a permissible venue under Code § 8.01-262 because VanMarter retained a residence there and conducted "substantial business activity" in the City.”
Barnett v. Kite, 624 S.E.2d 52 (Va. 2006).
· cites it 10× “The venue provision on which Kite relies is one of several tests for "permissible" forums set forth in former Code § 8.01-262. The particular statutory standard at issue here, "[w]herein the defendant regularly conducts affairs or business activity," is stated in plain and…”
Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. Dungee, 520 S.E.2d 164 (Va. 1999).
· cites it 4× “Code § 8.01-262. However, Code § 8.01-265, the so-called forum non-conveniens statute, allows the transfer of any action, even if it was originally filed in a proper venue, to “any fair and convenient forum” in the Commonwealth upon a motion by the defendant and “for good cause…”
Caldwell v. Seaboard Sys. RR, Inc., 380 S.E.2d 910 (Va. 1989).
· cites it 6× “Because Seaboard regularly and systematically conducted business activity in the City of Portsmouth, Portsmouth was a permissible venue under Code § 8.01-262. Seaboard filed an objection to venue and a motion to dismiss, contending that: (1) the Circuit Court of the City of…”
Faison v. Hudson, 417 S.E.2d 302 (Va. 1992).
· cites it 4× “” Code § 8.01-262, in pertinent part, reads as follows: In any actions to which this chapter applies except those actions enumerated in Category A where preferred venue is specified, one or more of the following counties or cities shall be permissible forums, such forums being…”
In re Chinese Drywall Cases, 80 Va. Cir. 69 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 6× “To the contrary, under subsections (2) and (3) of Va. Code § 8.01-262, permissible forums in the case of a defendant who has withdrawn from the Commonwealth include the jurisdiction where the defendant had its registered office or regularly conducted substantial business…”
Meyer v. Brown, 500 S.E.2d 807 (Va. 1998).
· cites it 5× “Code § 8.01-262, enumerating “permissible” forums, applies.”
Sandler v. Wintergreen Partners, Inc., 71 Va. Cir. 155 (Albemarle Cir. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 21× “Permissible Forums The permissible forums for civil actions are provided by Va. Code § 8.01-262. The Plaintiff may bring an action: (1) where the defendant resides or, if defendant is a corporation, where its president resides; (2) where the defendant has appointed an agent or…”
Jones v. Rusteau, 43 Va. Cir. 311 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1997).
· cites it 7× “With regard to Fuller’s status at the time of the accident, the language of the various provisions of the permissible venue statute, § 8.01-262, makes it dear that such status is irrelevant Specifically, those provisions, by the tense of the words in than, tell us those…”
Richardson v. Guffey, 24 Va. Cir. 423 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 8× “The first three subsections of Va. Code § 8.01-262 provide: Category B or permissible venue.”
Booth v. Broudy, 369 S.E.2d 165 (Va. 1988).
· cites it 6× “01-261, or the permissible venue statute, Code § 8.01-262. The county or city where the defendant resides is a permissible forum, Code § 8.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-262(1) — 11 cases
Hawthorne v. VanMarter, 692 S.E.2d 226 (Va. 2010).
“In response, Guthrie asserted that the City of Roanoke was a permissible venue under Code § 8.01-262 because VanMarter retained a residence there and conducted "substantial business activity" in the City.”
Booth v. Broudy, 369 S.E.2d 165 (Va. 1988).
“01-261, or the permissible venue statute, Code § 8.01-262. The county or city where the defendant resides is a permissible forum, Code § 8.”
Jones v. Rusteau, 43 Va. Cir. 311 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1997).
“With regard to Fuller’s status at the time of the accident, the language of the various provisions of the permissible venue statute, § 8.01-262, makes it dear that such status is irrelevant Specifically, those provisions, by the tense of the words in than, tell us those…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-262(10) — 4 cases
Smith v. Doe, 11 Va. Cir. 288 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1988).
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-262(2) — 9 cases
Richardson v. Guffey, 24 Va. Cir. 423 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1991).
“The first three subsections of Va. Code § 8.01-262 provide: Category B or permissible venue.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-262(3) — 34 cases
Barnett v. Kite, 624 S.E.2d 52 (Va. 2006).
“The venue provision on which Kite relies is one of several tests for "permissible" forums set forth in former Code § 8.01-262. The particular statutory standard at issue here, "[w]herein the defendant regularly conducts affairs or business activity," is stated in plain and…”
Hawthorne v. VanMarter, 692 S.E.2d 226 (Va. 2010).
“In response, Guthrie asserted that the City of Roanoke was a permissible venue under Code § 8.01-262 because VanMarter retained a residence there and conducted "substantial business activity" in the City.”
Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. Dungee, 520 S.E.2d 164 (Va. 1999).
“Code § 8.01-262. However, Code § 8.01-265, the so-called forum non-conveniens statute, allows the transfer of any action, even if it was originally filed in a proper venue, to “any fair and convenient forum” in the Commonwealth upon a motion by the defendant and “for good cause…”
In re Chinese Drywall Cases, 80 Va. Cir. 69 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2010).
“To the contrary, under subsections (2) and (3) of Va. Code § 8.01-262, permissible forums in the case of a defendant who has withdrawn from the Commonwealth include the jurisdiction where the defendant had its registered office or regularly conducted substantial business…”
Meyer v. Brown, 500 S.E.2d 807 (Va. 1998).
“Code § 8.01-262, enumerating “permissible” forums, applies.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-262(4) — 20 cases
Booth v. Broudy, 369 S.E.2d 165 (Va. 1988).
“01-261, or the permissible venue statute, Code § 8.01-262. The county or city where the defendant resides is a permissible forum, Code § 8.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-262(6) — 3 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.