Virginia Code
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328 (2026)
Person defined
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
As used in this chapter, "person" includes an individual, his executor, administrator, or other personal representative, or a corporation, partnership, association or any other legal or commercial entity, whether or not a citizen or domiciliary of this Commonwealth and whether or not organized under the laws of this Commonwealth.
Code 1950, § 8-81.1; 1964, c. 331; 1977, c. 617.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: Combs v. Dickenson-Wise Med. Grp., 355 S.E.2d 553 (Va. 1987).
Combs v. Dickenson-Wise Med. Grp., 355 S.E.2d 553 (Va. 1987). “The definition of the term “person” in Code § 8.01-328 is all inclusive, sufficient to bring within the ambit of the statute every natural or fictitious entity capable of performing the acts, such as transacting business, which are made the basis for the exercise of personal…”
Caldwell v. Seaboard Sys. RR, Inc., 380 S.E.2d 910 (Va. 1989). “Second, in the adoption of Code §§ 8.01-328 to -330, the legislature evinced a policy of extending the jurisdiction of its courts to the maximum extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.”
Noble Sec., Inc. v. MIZ Eng'g, Ltd., 611 F. Supp. 2d 513 (E.D. Va. 2009). “” Va.Code §§ 8.01-328(A)(1)-(3). Both the state and federal courts have found that “Virginia’s long-arm statute extends personal jurisdiction to the extent permitted by the Due Process Clause.”
Massey Energy Co. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 69 Va. Cir. 118 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2005). “This Court is persuaded that Plaintiffs have sufficiently made a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction pursuant to § 8.01-328(A)(4) as to Defendants WVCJ and Perdue and have satisfied the constitutional requirements of Due Process.”
Nan Ya Plastics Corp. U.S.A. v. DeSantis, 377 S.E.2d 388 (Va. 1989). “” Code § 8.01-328.1(A)(1). A “person,” as used in the foregoing statute, includes a corporation “whether or not a citizen or domiciliary of this State and whether or not organized under the laws of this State.”
Bergaust v. Flaherty, 703 S.E.2d 248 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). “The circuit court adopted the definition of those two words advanced by Flaherty, and found that the “plain, common and ordinary meaning of the term ‘fathered’ used in Code § 8.01-328 is to beget or to procreate as the father; whereas the term ‘conceived’ refers to the act of…”
Glumina Bank v. D.C. Diamond Corp., 527 S.E.2d 775 (Va. 2000). “” Code § 8.01-328. Thus, nonresident defendant Glumina Bank qualifies as a “person” under the statute.”
Frederick v. Koziol, 727 F. Supp. 1019 (E.D. Va. 1990). “01 of the Code of Virginia, consists of three provisions: Section 8.01-328. Person defined.; Section 8.”
Malcolm v. Esposito, 63 Va. Cir. 440 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2003). “This Court finds that formation of the contract for sale of the BMW occurred in Virginia, thereby satisfying the first prong of the jurisdictional inquiry. The transaction at issue unfolded in the following manner: Defendants placed a BMW for sale on the Internet website eBay.”
I. T. Sales, Inc. v. Dry, 278 S.E.2d 789 (Va. 1981). “5 (now §§ 8.01-328 to -330). Upon the defendant’s motion, the trial court quashed the process and dismissed the motion for judgment filed by the plaintiff-employer, I.”
Forbes v. Kenley, 314 S.E.2d 49 (Va. 1984). “In Walke , the plaintiff sought to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of a foreign corporation before enactment of the so-called “Long Arm” Statute (now Code § 8.01-328, et seq.). When the plaintiff served the defendant under the…”
Superfos Investments Ltd. v. Firstmiss Fertilizer, Inc., 774 F. Supp. 393 (E.D. Va. 1991). “Also, the scope of the “transacting business” requirement of the statute, § 8.01-328(A)(1), has specifically been construed to be limited only by the bounds of due process.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328(1)(C) — 1 case
Azzure Denim, L.L.C. v. E & J Lawrence Corp., 69 Va. Cir. 485 (Norfolk Cir. Ct. 2006).
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328(A)(1) — 4 cases
Noble Sec., Inc. v. MIZ Eng'g, Ltd., 611 F. Supp. 2d 513 (E.D. Va. 2009). “” Va.Code §§ 8.01-328(A)(1)-(3). Both the state and federal courts have found that “Virginia’s long-arm statute extends personal jurisdiction to the extent permitted by the Due Process Clause.”
Superfos Investments Ltd. v. Firstmiss Fertilizer, Inc., 774 F. Supp. 393 (E.D. Va. 1991). “Also, the scope of the “transacting business” requirement of the statute, § 8.01-328(A)(1), has specifically been construed to be limited only by the bounds of due process.”
Heathmount A.E. Corp. v. Technodome.com, 106 F. Supp. 2d 860 (E.D. Va. 2000).
Khan v. Ranjha, 53 Va. Cir. 530 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1999).
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328(A)(3) — 1 case
Young v. New Haven Advocate, 184 F. Supp. 2d 498 (W.D. Va. 2001).
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328(A)(4) — 2 cases
Massey Energy Co. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 69 Va. Cir. 118 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2005). “This Court is persuaded that Plaintiffs have sufficiently made a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction pursuant to § 8.01-328(A)(4) as to Defendants WVCJ and Perdue and have satisfied the constitutional requirements of Due Process.”
Young v. New Haven Advocate, 184 F. Supp. 2d 498 (W.D. Va. 2001).
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-328(C) — 1 case
Massey Energy Co. v. United Mine Workers of Am., 69 Va. Cir. 118 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2005). “This Court is persuaded that Plaintiffs have sufficiently made a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction pursuant to § 8.01-328(A)(4) as to Defendants WVCJ and Perdue and have satisfied the constitutional requirements of Due Process.”
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.