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. § 8.01-276 (2026)

Demurrer to evidence and plea in abatement abolished; motion to strike evidence and written motion, respectively, to be used in lieu thereof

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Demurrers to the evidence and pleas in abatement are hereby abolished.

Any matter that heretofore could be reached by a demurrer to the evidence may hereafter be subject to a motion to strike the evidence.

Any defense heretofore required or permitted to be made by plea in abatement may be made by written motion stating specifically the relief demanded and the grounds therefor. Except when the ground of such motion is the lack of the court's jurisdiction over the person of an indispensable party, or of the subject matter of the litigation, such motion shall be made within the time prescribed by Rules of the Supreme Court.

If the motion challenges the venue of the action, the movant shall state therein why venue is improperly laid and what place or places within the Commonwealth would constitute proper venue for the action.

1977, c. 617.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1982–2025 · leading case: Sweely Holdings, LLC v. Suntrust Bank, 820 S.E.2d 596 (Va. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sweely Holdings, LLC v. Suntrust Bank, 820 S.E.2d 596 (Va. 2018). · cites it 2× “See Code § 8.01-276 ("Any matter that heretofore could be reached by a demurrer to the evidence may hereafter be subject to a motion to strike the evidence.”
Johnston Mem'l Hosp. v. Bazemore, 672 S.E.2d 858 (Va. 2009). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to Code § 8.01-276, the General Assembly abolished "pleas in abatement.”
Bolling v. D'AMATO, 526 S.E.2d 257 (Va. 2000). · cites it 2× “See Code § 8.01-276 (abolishing pleas in abatement but allowing any defense heretofore permitted to be made by such plea, including lack of subject matter jurisdiction, to be made by written motion).”
Cuna Mut. Ins. Soc'y v. Navy Yard Credit Union, Inc., 379 S.E.2d 361 (Va. 1989). · cites it 2× “We will enter final judgment for the defendant credit union on the plaintiffs claim; final judgment for the credit union on its counterclaim; and final judgment for CUNA on the credit union’s cross-claim.”
Joyce v. Ctr. for Brief Counselling, Inc., 29 Va. Cir. 209 (Fredericksburg Cir. Ct. 1992). “For instance, pleas of the general issue have been abolished (Rule 3:5), and pleas in abatement have been abolished (§ 8.01-276; Rule 3:6); a plea may put handwriting, ownership, or existence of a suing entity in issue if accompanied by an affidavit (§ 8.”
Argos Utils. Corp. v. Perrin, 83 Va. Cir. 344 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2011). · cites it 6× “01-264 that exempted defendants from having to file venue objections to amended pleadings also would conflict with another statute, Virginia Code § 8.01-276. That statute and the current venue statutes, Va.”
Wingate v. Insight Health Corp., 87 Va. Cir. 227 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2013). · cites it 3× “Va. Code § 8.01-276. When a plaintiff does not join a necessaiy party, the remedy under Rule 3:12 is a motion to join that party made within twenty-one days after service of the complaint.”
Stafford Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. John L. Grove, II (Va. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “Finally, Rule 3:8 sets forth the requirements for filing responsive pleadings in civil actions, including a “demurrer, plea, motion to dismiss, motion for a bill of particulars, motion craving oyer, and a written motion asserting any preliminary defense under Code § 8.01-276.”…”
Carolyn F. Bowman v. Bd. of Supervisors of Prince Edward Cnty., Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “Further, the deadline prescribed by Rule 3:8 does not apply to a motion to dismiss based on “the lack of the court’s jurisdiction over the person of an indispensable party.”
Tatiana Gillespie v. Ajay Goyal (Va. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Friend, Virginia Pleading and Practice § 8-1(f), at 272-73 (1998) (explaining effect of Code § 8.01-276). 3 In his opening brief, Goyal also argues Gillespie’s alleged breach entitled him to “put an end to the contract” because Gillespie failed to perform her “promise in its…”
Ajay Goyal v. Tatiana Gillespie (Va. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Friend, Virginia Pleading and Practice § 8-1(f), at 272-73 (1998) (explaining effect of Code § 8.01-276). 3 In his opening brief, Goyal also argues Gillespie’s alleged breach entitled him to “put an end to the contract” because Gillespie failed to perform her “promise in its…”
Bulifant v. Travis, 2 Va. Cir. 251 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1985). · cites it 2× “The two defendants have now filed a motion under Section 8.01-276 of the Code claiming that this court does not have jurisdiction to try this law case since one partner cannot sue another partner on a claim growing out of the partnership business, but can only file a bill for an…”
Show all 13 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.