Va. Code » Title 8.01. Civil Remedies and Procedure » Chapter 14. Evidence » Article 4. Witnesses Generally
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-397.1 (2026)

Evidence of habit or routine practice; defined (Supreme Court Rule 2:406 derived from this section)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. Admissibility. Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eye witnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice. Evidence of prior conduct may be relevant to rebut evidence of habit or routine practice.

B. Habit and routine practice defined. A "habit" is a person's regular response to repeated specific situations. A "routine practice" is a regular course of conduct of a group of persons or an organization in response to repeated specific situations.

C. The provisions of this section are applicable only in civil proceedings.

2000, c. 1026.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2025 · leading case: Johnson v. Raviotta, 563 S.E.2d 727 (Va. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Johnson v. Raviotta, 563 S.E.2d 727 (Va. 2002). · cites it 10× “Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eye witnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the…”
Graham v. Cook, 682 S.E.2d 535 (Va. 2009). · cites it 8× “Man's habit or routine was admissible under Code § 8.01-397.1. [2] Graham now contends that Code § 8.”
Kimberlin v. PM Transp., Inc., 563 S.E.2d 665 (Va. 2002). · cites it 4× “The Plaintiff also sought to show, pursuant to Code § 8.01-397.1, that Rapp was in the habit of failing to wear his glasses.”
Burchett v. Commonwealth, 98 S.W.3d 492 (Ky. 2003). · cites it 2× “406; Virginia: Va.Code Ann. § 8.01-397.1; Washington: Wash.”
Hodges v. Commonwealth, 613 S.E.2d 834 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “See Code § 8.01-397.1. Thus, existing Supreme Court precedent authorizes the use of habit evidence in criminal cases only in the narrow circumstances of Graham , as construed in Ligón.”
Stottlemyer v. Ghramm, 597 S.E.2d 191 (Va. 2004). · cites it 2× “Ghramm's alleged prior bad acts do not constitute evidence of habit or routine practice within the intendment of Code § 8.01-397.1. IV. In summation, we hold that the circuit court properly limited the scope of plaintiff's cross-examination of Dr.”
Ann Reynolds Lee v. William Manson, M.D. (Va. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 10× “This medical malpractice appeal raises a challenge to the granting of a jury instruction on habit evidence that is closely modeled after language contained in Code § 8.01-397.1—a statute which addresses the admissibility of habit evidence.”
Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v. Bratton, 88 Va. Cir. 139 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2014). · cites it 3× “Slone’s habit of exiting the dump truck to check for spillage every second, third, or fourth asphalt pour is only probative if this was Mr.”
Shelton v. Chippenham & Johnston Willis Hospitals, Inc., 68 Va. Cir. 468 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 2005). · cites it 6× “The physician argued that, since habit testimony is admissible under Va. Code § 8.01-397.1, the trial court was correct in allowing his testimony.”
Est. of Sara A. McCorkle, by Charlotte A. Shirey v. Erickson Senior Living, LLC. (Va. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “” Code § 8.01-397.1 provides that evidence “of the routine practice of an organization[] .”
Commonwealth v. Schaerfl, 82 Va. Cir. 583 (Amherst Cir. Ct. 2008). · cites it 3× “7 is not applicable to any evidence of the victim pulling her pants down in public places.”
Samuel C. Asinugo v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “2d 834, 848 (2005) (interpreting Code § 8.01-397.1), rev’d on other grounds, 272 Va.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-397.1(A) — 1 case
Shelton v. Chippenham & Johnston Willis Hospitals, Inc., 68 Va. Cir. 468 (Richmond County Cir. Ct. 2005). “The physician argued that, since habit testimony is admissible under Va. Code § 8.01-397.1, the trial court was correct in allowing his testimony.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-397.1(B) — 1 case
Kimberlin v. PM Transp., Inc., 563 S.E.2d 665 (Va. 2002). “The Plaintiff also sought to show, pursuant to Code § 8.01-397.1, that Rapp was in the habit of failing to wear his glasses.”
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.