Va. Code » Title 8.01. Civil Remedies and Procedure » Chapter 8. Process » Article 1. In General

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-288

Process received in time good though neither served nor accepted

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Except for process commencing actions for divorce or annulment of marriage or other actions wherein service of process is specifically prescribed by statute, process which has reached the person to whom it is directed within the time prescribed by law, if any, shall be sufficient although not served or accepted as provided in this chapter.

Code 1950, § 8-53; 1977, c. 617; 1987, c. 594; 1988, c. 583.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 66 cases (11 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Muse Construction Group, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Virginia Board for Contractors
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Muse Construction Group, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Virginia Board for Contractors (2012) vactapp · cites it 37× “Furthermore, it is also apparent that such action does not even satisfy the relaxed requirements of the curative statute, Code § 8.01-288. That code section provides: Except for process commencing actions for divorce or annulment of marriage or other actions wherein service of…”
Frey v. Jefferson Homebuilders, Inc. (1996) va · cites it 30× “However, it overruled Jefferson's motion on the ground that its registered agent's actual receipt of the notice of motion for judgment was sufficient service under Code § 8.01-288. Whereupon, Jefferson filed a motion to dismiss the action on the ground that Rule 3:3 precluded…”
Lifestar Response of Maryland, Inc. v. Vegosen (2004) va · cites it 22× “While [Lifestar] is correct that Rule 3:3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia provides that the Notice of Motion for Judgment is the process required to give notice to the defendant of a lawsuit, the saving provision of Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-288 cures a defect of…”
Bendele Ex Rel. Bendele v. Com. (1999) vactapp · cites it 20× “1 However, she asserts that Code § 8.01-288 2 cures that defect because the agency received a copy of the petition within the time required.”
Muse Construction Group, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Virginia Board for Contractors (2012) vactapp · cites it 20× “Because we agree with appellant's contention that its service by certified mail of the petition for appeal satisfied the requirements of Rule 2A:4, we do not reach appellant's argument for the application of Code § 8.”
Virginia Retirement System v. Avery (2001) va · cites it 4× “That Code section provides: Except for process commencing actions for divorce or annulment of marriage or other actions wherein service of process is specifically prescribed by statute, process which has *543 reached the person to whom it is directed within the time prescribed…”
Virginia Employment Commission v. Porter-Blaine Corp. (1998) vactapp · cites it 8× “2 (1990) (citing Code § 8.01-288). Code § 8.01-288 states: [ejxcept for process commencing actions for divorce or annulment of marriage or other actions wherein service of process is specifically prescribed by statute, process which has reached the person to whom it is directed…”
Garritty v. Virginia Department of Social Services Ex Rel. Sinift (1990) vactapp · cites it 4× “2 The “curing statute,” Code § 8.01-288, is not applicable to the service of a summons under Code § 16.”
Davis v. American Interinsurance Exchange (1984) va · cites it 8× “[Although] Code § 8.01-288 2 now recognizes the validity of process which reaches the foreign corporation to whom it is directed within the time prescribed by law, even if not served as directed by Code § 8.”
FMAC Loan Receivables v. Dagra (2005) vaed · cites it 2× “Va.Code Ann. § 8.01-288. If this Court had found that it did not have jurisdiction of the case, remand rather than dismissal would have been an appropriate remedy.”
Keith Kessler v. Dennis Smith, Director, DMAS (1999) vactapp · cites it 4× “In deciding that question we held as follows: We conclude that the saving provisions of Code § 8.01-288 do not apply when the party mails a simple copy of the document to the opposing party rather than follow the requirements of Rule 2A:4.”
Doe v. Connors (1992) vawd · cites it 2× “Under Virginia law, “[ejxcept for process commencing actions for divorce or annulment of marriage or other actions wherein service of process is specifically prescribed by statute, process which has reached the person to whom it is directed within the time prescribed by law, if…”
Show all 66 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.