A. In any suit in equity or action at law, the contention that a pleading does not state a cause of action or that such pleading fails to state facts upon which the relief demanded can be granted may be made by demurrer. All demurrers shall be in writing and shall state specifically the grounds on which the demurrant concludes that the pleading is insufficient at law. No grounds other than those stated specifically in the demurrer shall be considered by the court. A demurrer may be amended as other pleadings are amended.
B. Wherever a demurrer to any pleading has been sustained, and as a result thereof the demurree has amended his pleading, he shall not be deemed to have waived his right to stand upon his pleading before the amendment, provided that (i) the order of the court shows that he objected to the ruling of the court sustaining the demurrer and (ii) the amended pleading incorporates or refers to the earlier pleading. On any appeal of such a case the demurree may insist upon his earlier pleading before the amendment, and if the same be held to be good, he shall not be prejudiced by having made the amendment.
Code 1950, §§ 8-99, 8-120; 1954, c. 333; 1977, c. 617; 2017, c. 755.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
262
cases (
31 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case:
Almy v. Grisham, 639 S.E.2d 182 (Va. 2007).
Almy v. Grisham, 639 S.E.2d 182 (Va. 2007).
· cites it 4× “See Code § 8.01-273; Harris v. Kreutzer, 271 Va.”
Terry v. Irish Fleet, Inc., 818 S.E.2d 788 (Va. 2018).
· cites it 2× “2d 80 , 86 (2012) ; see Code § 8.01-273. A demurrer tests the legal sufficiency of the facts properly alleged, and the inferences fairly drawn therefrom, but does not admit the correctness of the complaint's legal conclusions.”
McMillion v. Dryvit Sys., Inc., 552 S.E.2d 364 (Va. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Unfortunately, the circuit court did not articulate the basis for that decision but stated in its order only that Dryvit’s demurrer to Counts VI and VII in the third amended motion for judgment, alleging actual and constructive fraud, was sustained.”
Mathews v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 724 S.E.2d 196 (Va. 2012).
· cites it 2× “In this case, however, when PHH Mortgage Corporation filed its demurrer to the Mathewses' complaint seeking declaratory judgment, it did not assert as a basis for its demurrer the issue I have identified.”
Hechler Chevrolet, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 337 S.E.2d 744 (Va. 1985).
· cites it 2× “See Rule 1:8, Code § 8.01-273. The trial court, however, retains discretion to deny a motion for leave to amend when it is apparent that such an amendment would accomplish nothing more than provide opportunity for reargument of the question already decided.”
Jarrett v. Goldman, 67 Va. Cir. 361 (Portsmouth Cir. Ct. 2005).
· cites it 6× “Davis This matter is before the Court, pursuant to Va. Code § 8.01-273, on the demurrer of defendants Lon Goldman and Robert Webb, as well as the demurrer of defendants Viacom International, Inc.”
Tc Midatlantic Dev. v. Dept. of Gen. Svcs., 695 S.E.2d 543 (Va. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Regardless of the merits of DGS' position, Code § 8.01-273 provides that in considering a demurrer, "[n]o grounds other than those stated specifically in the demurrer shall be considered by the court.”
Jared v. Nisc Holdings, 727 S.E.2d 80 (Va. 2012).
· cites it 2× “The trial court erred in sustaining the [d]emurrer to the [s]econd [a]mended [c]omplaint, and thus dismissing the allegations in toto, before the Trust had any opportunity to take discovery on its allegations of fraud. II. ANALYSIS In our review of the circuit court's decision…”
Bd. OF SUP'RS, ETC. v. Southland Corp., 297 S.E.2d 718 (Va. 1982).
· cites it 2× “” The trial court overruled it upon the ground that demurrers are required by Code § 8.01-273 to be filed in writing. A further defect was its lack of timeliness.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-273(A) — 46 cases
Mathews v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 724 S.E.2d 196 (Va. 2012).
“In this case, however, when PHH Mortgage Corporation filed its demurrer to the Mathewses' complaint seeking declaratory judgment, it did not assert as a basis for its demurrer the issue I have identified.”
Jarrett v. Goldman, 67 Va. Cir. 361 (Portsmouth Cir. Ct. 2005).
“Davis This matter is before the Court, pursuant to Va. Code § 8.01-273, on the demurrer of defendants Lon Goldman and Robert Webb, as well as the demurrer of defendants Viacom International, Inc.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-273(B) — 4 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.