Va. Code » Title 8.01. Civil Remedies and Procedure » Chapter 5. Venue
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-263 (2026)

Multiple parties

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In actions involving multiple parties, venue shall not be subject to objection:

1. If one or more of the parties is entitled to preferred venue, and such action is commenced in any such forum; provided that in any action where there are one or more residents and one or more nonresidents or parties unknown, venue shall be proper (preferred or permissible, as the case may be) as to at least one resident defendant;

2. In all other cases, if the venue is proper as to any party.

1977, c. 617.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1978–2011 · leading case: Richardson v. Guffey, 24 Va. Cir. 423 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Richardson v. Guffey, 24 Va. Cir. 423 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1991). · cites it 5× “01-262(2) and (3), and § 8.01-263. Specifically, plaintiff argues that since Anderson and Guffey are not residents of Virginia and were served through the Commissioner of the Department of Motor Vehicles in Richmond, venue in Richmond is proper because § 8.”
Taylor v. Commonwealth, 34 Va. Cir. 73 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 1994). · cites it 10× “*76 Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-263 (Michie 1993). This statute declares that a party may not object to a place of venue as improper when the aforementioned conditions are met.”
Stilwell v. United Cities Gas Co., 23 Va. Cir. 195 (Va. Cir. Ct. 1991). · cites it 7× “Defendants also rely on § 8.01-263 stating that in cases where there are multiple parties consisting of a resident and nonresident, the venue applicable to the resident is proper and thus the case should transfer to Pulaski.”
Hathaway v. Warner-Lambert, Inc., 47 Va. Cir. 399 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1998). · cites it 5× “Finally, plaintiff argues that even if the court holds as it just has, Va. Code § 8.01-263 still makes Richmond a proper venue.”
Jones v. Rusteau, 43 Va. Cir. 311 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1997). “See § 8.01-263(2). Because *312 Fuller had no contacts with or in Richmond on die day suit was filed, venue does not exist in Richmond.”
Argos Utils. Corp. v. Perrin, 83 Va. Cir. 344 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2011). · cites it 4× “01-262, or § 8.01-263. The information to the defendant shall be stated in clear, nontechnical language reasonably calculated to accomplish the purpose of this subsection.”
Gibson v. Med. Facilities of Am., Inc., 79 Va. Cir. 329 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2009). · cites it 3× “Va. Code § 8.01-263. As the Court found above, venue in this case is proper in Norfolk for Medical Facilities of America.”
Gibson v. Med. Facilities of Am., Inc., 80 Va. Cir. 56 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2010). · cites it 3× “Va. Code § 8.01-263. As the Court found above, venue in this case is proper in Norfolk for Medical Facilities of America.”
Sponaugle v. Rutledge, 58 Va. Cir. 3 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “Sponaugle also argues that venue was proper against a former co-defendant against whom the case was dismissed before service was effected on Rutledge, and, therefore, pursuant to Virginia Code § 8.01-263, venue properly lies inFairfax County.”
Claypoole v. Ag-Chem Equip. Co., 6 Va. Cir. 404 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1986). · cites it 3× “My purpose in doing this was to study and consider § 8.01-263, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended, in light of the argument.”
Petersburg-Dinwiddie Aviation v. Thibault, 32 Va. Cir. 234 (Chesterfield Cir. Ct. 1993). · cites it 2× “The Court finds that one of the named defendants is a resident of the County of Chesterfield; therefore, pursuant to Virginia Code § 8.01-263(2), which addresses multiple parties, venue is proper.”
Simmons v. Drew, 5 Va. Cir. 519 (Virginia Beach Cir. Ct. 1978). “Being thus so, does the language of § 8.01-263 prevent a transfer of this case to a more convenient forum? Read in conjunction with § 8.”
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-263(2): 4 cases
Jones v. Rusteau, 43 Va. Cir. 311 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1997). “See § 8.01-263(2). Because *312 Fuller had no contacts with or in Richmond on die day suit was filed, venue does not exist in Richmond.”
Argos Utils. Corp. v. Perrin, 83 Va. Cir. 344 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2011). “01-262, or § 8.01-263. The information to the defendant shall be stated in clear, nontechnical language reasonably calculated to accomplish the purpose of this subsection.”
Stilwell v. United Cities Gas Co., 23 Va. Cir. 195 (Va. Cir. Ct. 1991). “Defendants also rely on § 8.01-263 stating that in cases where there are multiple parties consisting of a resident and nonresident, the venue applicable to the resident is proper and thus the case should transfer to Pulaski.”
Petersburg-Dinwiddie Aviation v. Thibault, 32 Va. Cir. 234 (Chesterfield Cir. Ct. 1993). “The Court finds that one of the named defendants is a resident of the County of Chesterfield; therefore, pursuant to Virginia Code § 8.01-263(2), which addresses multiple parties, venue is proper.”
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.