Virginia Code
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-326 (2026)
Return as proof of service
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
No return shall be conclusive proof as to service of process. The return of a sheriff shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated, and the return of a qualified individual under subdivision 2 of § 8.01-293 shall be evidence of the facts stated therein.
1977, c. 627.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1981–2021 · leading case: Dispanet v. Dispanet, 54 Va. Cir. 451 (Rockingham Cir. Ct. 2001).
Dispanet v. Dispanet, 54 Va. Cir. 451 (Rockingham Cir. Ct. 2001). “Pursuant to Va. Code § 8.01-326: No return shall be conclusive proof as to service of process.”
Bellis v. Commonwealth, 402 S.E.2d 211 (Va. 1991). “Code § 8.01-326. The return gives rise to a rebuttable presumption that the paper served, or knowledge of it, has actually reached the person sought to be served in time to permit compliance with its command.”
Finn v. Fancher, 37 Va. Cir. 449 (Stafford Cir. Ct. 1996). “” Code § 8.01-326. Accordingly, the facts in the return can be rebutted by competent evidence.”
Wilson v. Wilson, 9 Va. Cir. 508 (Frederick Cir. Ct. 1982). “Section 8.01-326 abrogates the previous rule that the return of an officer is a verity, see Revisers’ Note thereto.”
Schellinger v. Stearns, 43 Va. Cir. 268 (Loudoun Cir. Ct. 1997). “Virginia Code §8.01-326 provides, “No return [of service] shall be conclusive proof as to service of process [however] the return of a qualified individual under subdivision 2 of § 8.”
Small v. Small, 58 Va. Cir. 114 (2001). “Va. Code § 8.01-326. Mrs. Small, nonetheless, testified that she was not served with process as stated in the return of service.”
Coons & Thompson, Inc. v. Lapin, 7 Va. Cir. 73 (Virginia Beach Cir. Ct. 1981). “" His evidence offered in support of such allegation was presented under the authority of § 8.01-326, and such evidentiary hearing was held on July 10, 1981.”
Quartrez Logan, s/k/a Quartrez Rashad Logan v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2020). “” Code § 8.01-326 (emphasis added). -8- Effecting a ministerial duty is not the functional equivalent of live testimony nor is a record of service of process “evidence against” anyone as the framers understood the Confrontation Clause’s mandate.”
Jasmine Walker v. Breyon Pierce (Va. Ct. App. 2020). “That argument is plainly and explicitly rebutted by Code § 8.01-326. Pursuant to that section, “[t]he return of a sheriff shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.”
Jasmine Walker v. Breyon Pierce (Va. Ct. App. 2020). “That argument is plainly and explicitly rebutted by Code § 8.01-326. Pursuant to that section, “[t]he return of a sheriff shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.”
Clyde Carleton Koons, IV, f/k/a Clyde Carleton Crane, IV v. Leslie Elizabeth Crane (Va. Ct. App. 2021). “See Code § 8.01-326 (stating that the return of service by a private process server “shall be evidence of the facts stated therein”).”
Ayers v. Brooke Road, LLC (Va. 2021). “Although the complaints acknowledged that affidavits from a private process server stated that Ayers was personally served with copies of the confessed judgments in Virginia on August 12, 2009, 1 the complaints asserted that these 1 Pursuant to Code § 8.01-326, “[n]o return…”
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.