The court trying any civil case may upon its own motion, and shall upon the motion of any party, require the exclusion of every witness. However, the following shall be exempt from the rule of this section as a matter of right: (i) each named party who is an individual; (ii) one officer or agent of each party that is a public or private corporation, partnership, association, governmental agency, or other entity; (iii) an attorney alleged in a habeas corpus proceeding to have acted ineffectively; and (iv) in an unlawful detainer action filed in general district court, a managing agent as defined in § 55.1-1200.
Where expert witnesses are to testify in the case, the court may, at the request of all parties, allow one expert witness for each party to remain in the courtroom; however, in cases pertaining to the distribution of marital property pursuant to § 20-107.3 or the determination of child or spousal support pursuant to § 20-108.1, the court may, upon motion of any party, allow one expert witness for each party to remain in the courtroom throughout the hearing.
Code 1950, § 8-211.1; 1966, c. 268; 1975, c. 652; 1977, c. 617; 1986, c. 36; 1987, c. 70; 2001, c. 348; 2006, c. 757; 2016, c. 281; 2023, c. 615.
Notes of Decisions
Motley v. Tarmac Am., Inc., 516 S.E.2d 7 (Va. 1999).
· cites it 16× “Code § 8.01-375, states in relevant part: “The court trying any civil case may upon its own motion and shall upon the motion of any party, require the exclusion of every witness.”
Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Hodges, 448 S.E.2d 592 (Va. 1994).
· cites it 2× “The cross-error involves the trial court’s alleged error in permitting a defendant’s medical expert to testify even though the expert viewed before trial the videotaped trial testimony of two of the plaintiff’s medical experts, when the witnesses at trial had been excluded from…”
Nancy A. Hey v. Arlington Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 6× “Marvin to testify in violation of Code § 8.01-375. Code § 8.01-375 provides that “[t]he court trying any civil case may upon its own motion and shall upon the motion of any party, require the exclusion of every witness.”
Louise Hey v. Arlington Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 6× “Marvin to testify in violation of Code § 8.01-375. Code § 8.01-375 provides that “[t]he court trying any civil case may upon its own motion and shall upon the motion of any party, require the exclusion of every witness.”
Christopher Slitor v. Arlington Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 6× “Marvin to testify in violation of Code § 8.01-375. Code § 8.01-375 provides that “[t]he court trying any civil case may upon its own motion and shall upon the motion of any party, require the exclusion of every witness.”
Galiotos, T. v. Galiotos, S. (Va. 2021).
· cites it 2× “” Code § 8.01-375. There is an exception for individuals who are named parties; they are permitted to remain in the courtroom.”
Galiotos, T. v. Galiotos, S. (Va. 2021).
· cites it 2× “” Code § 8.01-375. There is an exception for individuals who are named parties; they are permitted to remain in the courtroom.”
Motley v. Mobley, 50 Va. Cir. 308 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 1999).
“Plaintiff maintained, and the Supreme Court agreed, that the truck driver’s presence during the trial at counsel’s table violated § 8.01-375, governing exclusion of witnesses.”
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.