In addition to the provisions of § 8.01-264 and notwithstanding the provisions of §§ 8.01-195.4, 8.01-260, 8.01-261 and 8.01-262, the court wherein an action is commenced may, upon motion by any party and for good cause shown, (i) dismiss an action brought by a person who is not a resident of the Commonwealth without prejudice under such conditions as the court deems appropriate if the cause of action arose outside of the Commonwealth and if the court determines that a more convenient forum which has jurisdiction over all parties is available in a jurisdiction other than the Commonwealth or (ii) transfer the action to any fair and convenient forum having jurisdiction within the Commonwealth. Such conditions as the court deems appropriate shall include, but not be limited to, a requirement that the defendant agree not to assert the statute of limitations as a defense if the action is brought in a more convenient forum within a time specified by the court. The court, on motion of any party and for good cause shown, may retain the action for trial. Except by agreement of all parties, no action enumerated in Category A, § 8.01-261, shall be transferred to or retained by a forum not enumerated in such category. Good cause shall be deemed to include, but not to be limited to, the agreement of the parties or the avoidance of substantial inconvenience to the parties or the witnesses, or complying with the law of any other state or the United States.
The provisions of (i) of this section shall not apply to causes of action which accrue under § 8.01-249(4).
Code 1950, §§ 8-38, 8-157, 8-158; 1950, p. 78; 1954, c. 660; 1956, c. 432; 1956, Ex. Sess., c. 11; 1960, c. 569; 1964, c. 502; 1968, c. 386; 1977, c. 617; 1979, c. 662; 1982, c. 601; 1991, c. 530; 2007, c. 105.
Notes of Decisions
Caldwell v. Seaboard Sys. RR, Inc., 380 S.E.2d 910 (Va. 1989).
· cites it 24× “870490), we decide the constitutionality of that part of the forum non conveniens statute, Code § 8.01-265, which precludes dismissal of actions arising in jurisdictions other than Virginia.”
Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. Dungee, 520 S.E.2d 164 (Va. 1999).
· cites it 9× “According to Virginia Power, our decision in Williams established that “a trial court abuses its discretion under Va. Code § 8.01-265 if it declines to transfer venue from a forum with no practical nexus to the cause of action to a more convenient forum with a strong nexus.”
RMBS Recovery Holdings, I, LLC v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 827 S.E.2d 762 (Va. 2019).
· cites it 12× “Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens On June 29, 2017, HSBC filed a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, pursuant to Code § 8.01-265. HSBC argued that New York City was a "more convenient and practical forum" because (1) the Funds' investment manager, Fir Tree…”
Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Williams, 389 S.E.2d 714 (Va. 1990).
· cites it 5× “Code § 8.01-265. The transfer decision is within the court’s discretion, and, as with other discretionary acts, there is no clear formula which can be mechanically applied.”
In re Chinese Drywall Cases, 80 Va. Cir. 69 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2010).
· cites it 8× “The Court does not consider that spreading these cases from this jurisdiction where they have already been consolidated for pretrial purposes to one half-dozen different jurisdictions would promote “the avoidance of substantial inconvenience” addressed in Va. Code § 8.01-265.…”
Faison v. Hudson, 417 S.E.2d 302 (Va. 1992).
· cites it 4× “) At the time of the trial court’s ruling, Code § 8.01-265, in pertinent part, provided as follows: In addition to the provisions of § 8.”
Kent M. Williams v. Kimberly D. Williams, 734 S.E.2d 186 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 8× “Although transfer may be appropriate in cases where venue is improper, see Code § 8.01-265, 5 where a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case must be dismissed.”
Littleton v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 87 Va. Cir. 333 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 18× “” Va. Code § 8.01-265. Under § 8.01-265, “[g]ood cause [is] deemed to include, but not limited to, the .”
O'Neil v. O'Neil, 724 S.E.2d 247 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 6× “In response, husband asserts that Code § 8.01-265, the forum non conveniens statute for Virginia, narrows the scope of Code § 20-88.”
Booth v. Broudy, 369 S.E.2d 165 (Va. 1988).
· cites it 7× “Code § 8.01-265. “Good cause shall be deemed to include, but not *459 to be limited to, .”
Johnson v. Johnson, 493 S.E.2d 668 (Va. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 2× “See Code § 8.01-265. Venue can be conferred by consent or waiver.”
Nales v. S. Ry. Co., 20 Va. Cir. 393 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1990).
· cites it 8× “It argues, however, that this is the only connection with this jurisdiction, that Danville is a more convenient forum, and therefore, good cause exists for transfer under Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-265 (1984 Repl. Vol.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-265(h) — 1 case
Littleton v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 87 Va. Cir. 333 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2013).
“” Va. Code § 8.01-265. Under § 8.01-265, “[g]ood cause [is] deemed to include, but not limited to, the .”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-265(i) — 2 cases
Littleton v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 87 Va. Cir. 333 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2013).
“” Va. Code § 8.01-265. Under § 8.01-265, “[g]ood cause [is] deemed to include, but not limited to, the .”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-265(ii) — 1 case
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.