Va. Code » Title 8.01. Civil Remedies and Procedure » Chapter 7. Civil Actions; Commencement, Pleadings, and Motions » Article 2. Pleadings Generally
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-275.1 (2026)

When service of process is timely

✓ 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

Service of process in an action or suit within twelve months of commencement of the action or suit against a defendant shall be timely as to that defendant. Service of process on a defendant more than twelve months after the suit or action was commenced shall be timely upon a finding by the court that the plaintiff exercised due diligence to have timely service made on the defendant.

1994, c. 519.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · leading case: Waterman v. Halverson, 540 S.E.2d 867 (Va. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Waterman v. Halverson, 540 S.E.2d 867 (Va. 2001). · cites it 22× “In this appeal we consider whether the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiff’s motion for judgment as untimely filed based on its construction of Code § 8.01-275.1. Laurie F.S. Waterman filed a medical malpractice action against Sandy (Butler) Halverson, Michelle “Roe”…”
Janvier v. Arminio, 634 S.E.2d 754 (Va. 2006). · cites it 6× “" In addition to these statutory provisions, the procedural facts of this case implicate consideration of the applicability of Code § 8.01-275.1, which provides that "[s]ervice of process .”
Berry v. F & S Fin. Mktg., Inc., 626 S.E.2d 821 (Va. 2006). · cites it 8× “1 Because the plaintiff in this case requested a nonsuit prior to the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to satisfy the one-year service of process requirement set forth in Rule 3:3(c) and Code § 8.01-275.1, we will affirm the judgment of the circuit court granting the…”
Frey v. Jefferson Homebuilders, Inc., 467 S.E.2d 788 (Va. 1996). · cites it 8× “NOTES [*] We note that the General Assembly has codified the one-year service provision of Rule 3:3 in Code § 8.01-275.1. Gilbreath v. Brewster, 250 Va.”
Brake v. Payne, 597 S.E.2d 59 (Va. 2004). · cites it 6× “On October 22, 2001, which was one day before the expiration of the twelve-month period after commencement of the Second Action in which timely process should have been served pursuant to the provisions of Code § 8.01-275.1 and Rule 3:3(c), Payne filed a "Notice of Voluntary…”
Cordova v. Alper, 64 Va. Cir. 87 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2004). · cites it 6× “Issues Raised by Alper’s Claims (1) Timeliness of Service of Process Issue Initially, Alper contends that he was not served with process within one year of the filing of The Law Case, and, pursuant to Va. Code § 8.01-275.1 and Rule 3:3 of the Rules of Virginia Supreme Court, the…”
Earp v. Dynasty Hair Salon, Inc., 48 Va. Cir. 292 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1999). · cites it 12× “Rule 3:3 mandates that: no judgment shall be entered against a defendant who was served with process more than one year after the commencement of the action against him unless the court finds as a fact that file plaintiff exercised due diligence to have timely service on him.”
Gilbreath v. Brewster, 463 S.E.2d 836 (Va. 1995). · cites it 2× “3 We note that in 1994, the General Assembly enacted Code § 8.01-275.1, which codifies the one year service provision of Rule 3:3.”
Rice v. Alpha Sec., Inc., 940 F. Supp. 2d 321 (E.D. Va. 2013). · cites it 7× “Va. Code § 8.01-275.1 (2007 & 2012 Supp.).”
Skinner v. Clements, 45 Va. Cir. 482 (Spotsylvania Cir. Ct. 1998). · cites it 5× “Virginia Code § 8.01-275.1 provides: Service of process in an action or suit within twelve months of commencement of the action or suit against a defendant shall be timely as to that defendant.”
Doulgerakis v. Cooper, 57 Va. Cir. 326 (Va. Cir. Ct. 2002). · cites it 8× “Discussion Due Diligence Rule 3:3 mandates that no judgment shall be entered against a defendant who was served with process more than one year after the commencement of the action against him unless the Court finds as a fact that the Plaintiff exercised due diligence to have…”
Culkin v. CNH Am., LLC, 598 F. Supp. 2d 758 (E.D. Va. 2009). · cites it 3× “Va.Code § 8.01-275.1. Plaintiff filed a motion for voluntary nonsuit against Neff under Va.”
Show all 56 citing 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.