The district courts and circuit courts may, from time to time, prescribe rules for their respective districts and circuits. Such rules shall be limited to those rules necessary to promote proper order and decorum and the efficient and safe use of courthouse facilities and clerks' offices. No rule of any such court shall be prescribed or enforced which is inconsistent with this statute or any other statutory provision, or the Rules of Supreme Court or contrary to the decided cases, or which has the effect of abridging substantive rights of persons before such court. Any rule of court which violates the provisions of this section shall be invalid.
The courts may prescribe certain docket control procedures which shall not abridge the substantive rights of the parties nor deprive any party the opportunity to present its position as to the merits of a case solely due to the unfamiliarity of counsel of record with any such docket control procedures. No civil matter shall be dismissed with prejudice by any district or circuit court for failure to comply with any rule created under this section.
Code 1950, § 8-1.3; 1970, c. 366; 1977, c. 617; 1999, c. 839; 2000, c. 803; 2014, c. 348.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
22
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 2000–2026 · leading case:
Collins v. Shepherd, 649 S.E.2d 672 (Va. 2007).
Collins v. Shepherd, 649 S.E.2d 672 (Va. 2007).
· cites it 24× “Finally, Collins contended that the circuit court's Local Rule 2(F)(3) was invalid under Code § 8.01-4 because it abridged Collins' substantive right to nonsuit the action prior to service of process on Shepherd.”
Judy Kay Reaves v. James Kelly Tucker, 800 S.E.2d 188 (Va. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “Compliance With the Pretrial Scheduling Order Code § 8.01-4 provides, in relevant part, that trial courts “may prescribe certain docket control procedures which shall not abridge the substantive rights of the parties nor deprive any party the opportunity to present its position…”
De Haan v. De Haan, 680 S.E.2d 297 (Va. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “See Code § 8.01-4 (authorizing trial courts to adopt local rules and docket control methods).”
Cloutier v. Queen, 545 S.E.2d 574 (Va. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “) As a preliminary matter, Code § 8.01-4 provides that “local rules” are limited to “those rules necessary to promote proper order and decorum and the efficient and safe use of the *422 courthouse facilities and the clerks’ offices.”
Lee v. Mulford, 611 S.E.2d 349 (Va. 2005).
· cites it 2× “We note that Code § 8.01-4 provides: The district courts and circuit courts may, from time to time prescribe rules for their respective districts and circuits.”
Gurley v. Commonwealth, 538 S.E.2d 361 (Va. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 9× “1 Code § 8.01-4 provides, in pertinent part: [C]ircuit courts may, from time to time, prescribe rules for their respective .”
Shapiro v. Younkin, 688 S.E.2d 157 (Va. 2010).
· cites it 4× “We note, however, that while Code § 8.01-4 authorizes circuit courts to prescribe rules to "promote proper order and decorum and the efficient and safe use of courthouse facilities and clerks' offices," the statute prohibits any such rule which is inconsistent with any statute…”
Martin v. Duncan, 671 S.E.2d 151 (Va. 2009).
· cites it 2× “Code § 8.01-4 provides that a local rule cannot be enforced if it "is inconsistent with .”
Robert Thornhill v. Commonwealth Eye Ctr., P.C. (Va. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 21× “” Code § 8.01-4 (emphasis added). Dismissing a litigant’s cause of action based solely on procedural violations inherently abridges their substantive rights by denying them even the opportunity to furnish proof in support of their cause of action.”
Steven Douglas Moore v. Bridget Monica Moore (Va. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 20× “The trial court erred as a matter of law in enforcing a local discovery rule by imposing sanctions that precluded wife from presenting evidence of value for the Excluded Properties at an equitable distribution trial, where enforcement was inconsistent with Code § 8.01-4, the…”
Bridget Monica Moore v. Steven Douglas Moore (Va. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 20× “The trial court erred as a matter of law in enforcing a local discovery rule by imposing sanctions that precluded wife from presenting evidence of value for the Excluded Properties at an equitable distribution trial, where enforcement was inconsistent with Code § 8.01-4, the…”
Agustin Perez v. Lab'y Corp. of Am. (Va. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 14× “Collins highlighted the limitations on powers of trial courts to establish local rules and procedures under Code § 8.01-4, which permits docket control procedures, but only if they do not “abridge the substantive rights of the parties nor deprive any party the opportunity to…”
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.