A. A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from the person's:
1. Transacting any business in this Commonwealth;
2. Contracting to supply services or things in this Commonwealth;
3. Causing tortious injury by an act or omission in this Commonwealth;
4. Causing tortious injury in this Commonwealth by an act or omission outside this Commonwealth if he regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in this Commonwealth;
5. Causing injury in this Commonwealth to any person by breach of warranty expressly or impliedly made in the sale of goods outside this Commonwealth when he might reasonably have expected such person to use, consume, or be affected by the goods in this Commonwealth, provided that he also regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in this Commonwealth;
6. Having an interest in, using, or possessing real property in this Commonwealth;
7. Contracting to insure any person, property, or risk located within this Commonwealth at the time of contracting;
8. Having (i) executed an agreement in this Commonwealth which obligates the person to pay spousal support or child support to a domiciliary of this Commonwealth, or to a person who has satisfied the residency requirements in suits for annulments or divorce for members of the armed forces or civilian employees of the United States, including foreign service officers, pursuant to § 20-97, provided that proof of service of process on a nonresident party is made by a law-enforcement officer or other person authorized to serve process in the jurisdiction where the nonresident party is located; (ii) been ordered to pay spousal support or child support pursuant to an order entered by any court of competent jurisdiction in this Commonwealth having in personam jurisdiction over such person; or (iii) shown by personal conduct in this Commonwealth, as alleged by affidavit, that the person conceived or fathered a child in this Commonwealth;
9. Having maintained within this Commonwealth a matrimonial domicile at the time of separation of the parties upon which grounds for divorce or separate maintenance is based, or at the time a cause of action arose for divorce or separate maintenance or at the time of commencement of such suit, if the other party to the matrimonial relationship resides herein; or
10. Having incurred a liability for taxes, fines, penalties, interest, or other charges to any political subdivision of the Commonwealth.
Jurisdiction in subdivision 9 is valid only upon proof of service of process pursuant to § 8.01-296 on the nonresident party by a person authorized under the provisions of § 8.01-320. Jurisdiction under clause (iii) of subdivision 8 is valid only upon proof of personal service on a nonresident pursuant to § 8.01-320.
B. Using a computer or computer network located in the Commonwealth shall constitute an act in the Commonwealth. For purposes of this subsection, "use" and "computer network" shall have the same meanings as those contained in § 18.2-152.2.
C. When jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, only a cause of action arising from acts enumerated in this section may be asserted against him; however, nothing contained in this chapter shall limit, restrict, or otherwise affect the jurisdiction of any court of this Commonwealth over foreign corporations that are subject to service of process pursuant to the provisions of any other statute.
Code 1950, § 8-81.2; 1964, c. 331; 1977, c. 617; 1978, c. 132; 1981, c. 6; 1982, c. 313; 1983, c. 428; 1984, c. 609; 1986, c. 275; 1987, c. 594; 1988, cc. 866, 878; 1992, c. 571; 1999, cc. 886, 904, 905; 2001, c. 221; 2007, c. 533; 2009, c. 582; 2017, c. 480.
Notes of Decisions
Pinpoint IT Servs., L.L.C. v. Atlas IT Exp. Corp., 812 F. Supp. 2d 710 (E.D. Va. 2011).
· cites it 23× “As to the long-arm portion of the analysis, Virginia’s long-arm statute, section 8.01-328.1 of the Code of Virginia, provides that “[a] court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from” a number of…”
DeSantis v. Hafner Creations, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 419 (E.D. Va. 1996).
· cites it 26× “The question presented in this patent infringement suit is whether the Virginia “long-arm” statute, Virginia Code § 8.01-328.1 et seq., reaches an alleged patent in-fringer whose only contacts with Virginia were: (i) to advertise the allegedly infringing product in a…”
Bochan v. La Fontaine, 68 F. Supp. 2d 692 (E.D. Va. 1999).
· cites it 32× “” 17 Bochan contends that jurisdiction exists over all defendants on the basis of two separate prongs of Virginia’s long arm statute, Va.Code § 8.01-328.1(A)(3), and § 8.01-328.”
D'addario v. Geller, 264 F. Supp. 2d 367 (E.D. Va. 2003).
· cites it 12× “For state courts to possess personal jurisdiction over a defendant, a state statute must confer jurisdiction, and the exercise of jurisdiction must be consistent with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Nathan v. Takeda Pharm. Am., Inc., 83 Va. Cir. 216 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2011).
· cites it 55× “Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1 (2011). The statute enumerates ten categories of “contacts” which confer jurisdiction on a nonresident.”
Cordova v. Alper, 64 Va. Cir. 87 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 28× “He further ruled that there was no basis for Virginia to have exercised in personam jurisdiction over Crawford under Virginia’s long-arm statute, Va. Code § 8.01-328.1. As a result, he granted the motion and entered an order setting aside the judgment against Crawford on April…”
Peninsula Cruise, Inc. v. New River Yacht Sales, Inc., 512 S.E.2d 560 (Va. 1999).
· cites it 14× “In this appeal we consider whether the circuit court erred in refusing to exercise personal jurisdiction over a Florida corporation pursuant to Code § 8.01-328.1, the long-arm statute. Peninsula Cruise, Inc.”
Krantz v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Intern., 427 S.E.2d 326 (Va. 1993).
· cites it 16× “In this action against two defendants for intentional interference with a prospective employment contract, we decide: (1) whether one of the defendants, a nonresident, is subject to service of process under Code § 8.01-328.1 (the long-arm statute); and (2) whether the claim…”
Prod. Grp. Int'l, Inc. v. Goldman, 337 F. Supp. 2d 788 (E.D. Va. 2004).
· cites it 9× “Personal Jurisdiction Defendant contends that his alleged contacts with the Commonwealth of Virginia — accepting and maintaining employment with a Virginia-based company, communicating regularly with Virginia-based colleagues on business matters, and traveling to Virginia three…”
Bergaust v. Flaherty, 703 S.E.2d 248 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 17× “First, each alleged cause of action must be measured for a fit against each alleged part of the Long Arm Statute, Va.Code § 8.01-328.1. If no fit is found, the inquiry is at an end: there is no personal jurisdiction.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(1) — 3 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(3) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(4) — 2 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(8) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(9) — 3 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(A) — 44 cases
Pinpoint IT Servs., L.L.C. v. Atlas IT Exp. Corp., 812 F. Supp. 2d 710 (E.D. Va. 2011).
“As to the long-arm portion of the analysis, Virginia’s long-arm statute, section 8.01-328.1 of the Code of Virginia, provides that “[a] court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from” a number of…”
Peninsula Cruise, Inc. v. New River Yacht Sales, Inc., 512 S.E.2d 560 (Va. 1999).
“In this appeal we consider whether the circuit court erred in refusing to exercise personal jurisdiction over a Florida corporation pursuant to Code § 8.01-328.1, the long-arm statute. Peninsula Cruise, Inc.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(A)(1) — 88 cases
DeSantis v. Hafner Creations, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 419 (E.D. Va. 1996).
“The question presented in this patent infringement suit is whether the Virginia “long-arm” statute, Virginia Code § 8.01-328.1 et seq., reaches an alleged patent in-fringer whose only contacts with Virginia were: (i) to advertise the allegedly infringing product in a…”
D'addario v. Geller, 264 F. Supp. 2d 367 (E.D. Va. 2003).
“For state courts to possess personal jurisdiction over a defendant, a state statute must confer jurisdiction, and the exercise of jurisdiction must be consistent with the due process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Nathan v. Takeda Pharm. Am., Inc., 83 Va. Cir. 216 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2011).
“Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1 (2011). The statute enumerates ten categories of “contacts” which confer jurisdiction on a nonresident.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(A)(10) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(A)(2) — 12 cases
Pinpoint IT Servs., L.L.C. v. Atlas IT Exp. Corp., 812 F. Supp. 2d 710 (E.D. Va. 2011).
“As to the long-arm portion of the analysis, Virginia’s long-arm statute, section 8.01-328.1 of the Code of Virginia, provides that “[a] court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from” a number of…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(A)(3) — 34 cases
Bochan v. La Fontaine, 68 F. Supp. 2d 692 (E.D. Va. 1999).
“” 17 Bochan contends that jurisdiction exists over all defendants on the basis of two separate prongs of Virginia’s long arm statute, Va.Code § 8.01-328.1(A)(3), and § 8.01-328.”
Krantz v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, Intern., 427 S.E.2d 326 (Va. 1993).
“In this action against two defendants for intentional interference with a prospective employment contract, we decide: (1) whether one of the defendants, a nonresident, is subject to service of process under Code § 8.01-328.1 (the long-arm statute); and (2) whether the claim…”
Nathan v. Takeda Pharm. Am., Inc., 83 Va. Cir. 216 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2011).
“Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1 (2011). The statute enumerates ten categories of “contacts” which confer jurisdiction on a nonresident.”
DeSantis v. Hafner Creations, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 419 (E.D. Va. 1996).
“The question presented in this patent infringement suit is whether the Virginia “long-arm” statute, Virginia Code § 8.01-328.1 et seq., reaches an alleged patent in-fringer whose only contacts with Virginia were: (i) to advertise the allegedly infringing product in a…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(A)(4) — 42 cases
Bochan v. La Fontaine, 68 F. Supp. 2d 692 (E.D. Va. 1999).
“” 17 Bochan contends that jurisdiction exists over all defendants on the basis of two separate prongs of Virginia’s long arm statute, Va.Code § 8.01-328.1(A)(3), and § 8.01-328.”
DeSantis v. Hafner Creations, Inc., 949 F. Supp. 419 (E.D. Va. 1996).
“The question presented in this patent infringement suit is whether the Virginia “long-arm” statute, Virginia Code § 8.01-328.1 et seq., reaches an alleged patent in-fringer whose only contacts with Virginia were: (i) to advertise the allegedly infringing product in a…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(A)(5) — 5 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(A)(6) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(A)(8) — 4 cases
Bergaust v. Flaherty, 703 S.E.2d 248 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“First, each alleged cause of action must be measured for a fit against each alleged part of the Long Arm Statute, Va.Code § 8.01-328.1. If no fit is found, the inquiry is at an end: there is no personal jurisdiction.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(A)(8)(i) — 4 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(A)(8)(ii) — 3 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(A)(8)(iii) — 1 case
Bergaust v. Flaherty, 703 S.E.2d 248 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“First, each alleged cause of action must be measured for a fit against each alleged part of the Long Arm Statute, Va.Code § 8.01-328.1. If no fit is found, the inquiry is at an end: there is no personal jurisdiction.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(A)(9) — 12 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(AX1) — 2 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(AX9) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(B) — 16 cases
Pinpoint IT Servs., L.L.C. v. Atlas IT Exp. Corp., 812 F. Supp. 2d 710 (E.D. Va. 2011).
“As to the long-arm portion of the analysis, Virginia’s long-arm statute, section 8.01-328.1 of the Code of Virginia, provides that “[a] court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from” a number of…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(C) — 11 cases
Pinpoint IT Servs., L.L.C. v. Atlas IT Exp. Corp., 812 F. Supp. 2d 710 (E.D. Va. 2011).
“As to the long-arm portion of the analysis, Virginia’s long-arm statute, section 8.01-328.1 of the Code of Virginia, provides that “[a] court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from” a number of…”
Cordova v. Alper, 64 Va. Cir. 87 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2004).
“He further ruled that there was no basis for Virginia to have exercised in personam jurisdiction over Crawford under Virginia’s long-arm statute, Va. Code § 8.01-328.1. As a result, he granted the motion and entered an order setting aside the judgment against Crawford on April…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(a) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(a)(1) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(a)(3) — 1 case
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328.1(a)(4) — 2 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.