When an attorney authorized to practice law in this Commonwealth has entered a general appearance for any party, any process, order or other legal papers to be used in the proceeding may be served on such attorney of record. Such service shall have the same effect as if service had been made upon such party personally; provided, however, that in any proceeding in which a final decree or order has been entered, service on an attorney as provided herein shall not be sufficient to constitute personal jurisdiction over a party in any proceeding citing that party for contempt, either civil or criminal, unless personal service is also made on the party.
Provided, further, that if such attorney objects by motion within five days after such legal paper has been so served upon him, the court shall enter an order in the proceeding directing the manner of service of such legal paper.
Code 1950, § 8-69; 1977, c. 617; 1981, c. 495.
Notes of Decisions
Hunter v. Commonwealth, 427 S.E.2d 197 (Va. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “2d 439, 444 (1984) (citing Code § 8.01-314, which states that notice to counsel of record by entry of an order "shall have the same effect as if service had been made upon such party personally.”
Eddine v. Eddine, 406 S.E.2d 914 (Va. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 6× “Code § 8.01-314. Both of these provisions serve to ensure that notice of the proceedings may be served on the litigants.”
Francis v. Francis, 518 S.E.2d 842 (Va. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 2× “01-314 provides, in pertinent part: When an attorney authorized to practice law in this Commonwealth has entered a general appearance for any party, any process, order or other legal papers to be used in the proceeding may be served on such attorney of record.”
Fredericksburg Constr. Co. v. J.W. Wyne Excavating, Inc., 530 S.E.2d 148 (Va. 2000).
· cites it 2× “In addition, Fredericksburg contended that the service of these two notices had been defective because Arent Fox was its counsel of record and those notices had not been served on Arent Fox in accordance with the provisions of Code § 8.01-314. Fredericksburg further contended…”
Broomfield v. Jackson, 447 S.E.2d 880 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “The Commissioner argues that Code § 8.01-314 is not in conflict with the APA and should be read to apply to administrative agency proceedings conducted under the APA.”
Lesner Pointe Condo. Ass'n v. Harbour Point Bldg. Corp., 61 Va. Cir. 609 (2002).
· cites it 6× “Gemini Did Not Effectuate Service by Mailing a Copy of the Cross-claim to Dryvit’s Counsel Gemini further argues that mailing a copy of the cross-claim to Dryvit’s counsel was enough to effectuate service under Code § 8.01-314. Section 8.01-314 states: When an attorney…”
Shahbazian v. Nelson, 65 Va. Cir. 210 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 5× “Complainant relies on Va. Code § 8.01-314 in asserting that mailing of notice of the motion to Mr.”
Mosher v. Fields, 25 Va. Cir. 331 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 4× “" Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-314 (Repl. Vol. 1984).”
Andrea Catherine Williams Key v. James Darren Key, II (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “See Code § 8.01-314 (providing that “in any proceeding in which a final order has been entered, service on an attorney as provided herein shall not be sufficient to constitute personal jurisdiction over a party in any proceeding citing that party for contempt, either civil or…”
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.