Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-401.3 (2026)

Opinion testimony and conclusions as to facts critical to civil case resolution (Supreme Court Rule 2:701 derived from subsection B of this section, subdivision (a)(i) of Supreme Court Rule 2:702 derived from subsection A of this section, and subsection (a) of Supreme Court Rule 2:704 derived from subsections B and C of 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. In a civil proceeding, if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.

B. No expert or lay witness while testifying in a civil proceeding shall be prohibited from expressing an otherwise admissible opinion or conclusion as to any matter of fact solely because that fact is the ultimate issue or critical to the resolution of the case. However, in no event shall such witness be permitted to express any opinion which constitutes a conclusion of law.

C. Except as provided by the provisions of this section, the exceptions to the "ultimate fact in issue" rule recognized in the Commonwealth prior to enactment of this section shall remain in full force.

1993, c. 909.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 70 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Artis v. Ottenberg's Bakers, Inc., 608 S.E.2d 512 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Artis v. Ottenberg's Bakers, Inc., 608 S.E.2d 512 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “3 ("In a civil proceeding, if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify…”

Molina v. Commonwealth, 624 S.E.2d 83 (Va. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “The scope of such evidence extends to any subject in respect of which one may derive special knowledge by experience, when [the witness's] knowledge of the matter in relation to which [the witness's] opinion is asked is such, or is so great, that it will probably aid the trier…”

Kidder v. Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Prog., 560 S.E.2d 907 (Va. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “Citing Code § 8.01-401.3 and a similar federal evidentiary rule, claimant argues that the program’s medical evidence did not sufficiently exclude oxygen deprivation as a probable cause of his injury.”

Christopher Farrell v. Warren Cnty. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 719 S.E.2d 329 (Va. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “” More pertinent to this case, Code § 8.01-401.3 allows an expert witness to testify to the ultimate issue if she qualifies by “knowledge, skill, experience, training or education.”

Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, 443 S.E.2d 419 (Va. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “See Code § 8.01-401.3; Llamera v. Commonwealth, 243 Va.”

Velazquez v. Commonwealth, 557 S.E.2d 213 (Va. 2002). · cites it 2× “Code § 8.01-401.3. In essence, all that is necessary for a witness to qualify as an expert is that the witness have sufficient knowledge of the subject to give value to the witness’s opinion.”

David A. Parker Enter., Inc. v. Templeton, 467 S.E.2d 488 (Va. 1996). · cites it 12× “He stated that the wounds had an "arcus" shape, consisting of initially shallow cuts, then deeper cuts, followed by more shallow cuts.”

Blue Ridge Serv. of Va v. Saxon Shoes, 624 S.E.2d 55 (Va. 2006). · cites it 2× “2 The General Assembly has determined that "scientific, technical, or other specialize[d]" expert testimony is admissible into evidence if it "will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.”

Thomas C. Shooltz v. Jane Hoffman Shooltz, 498 S.E.2d 437 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “See Code § 8.01-401.3. 7 In the present case, wife failed to produce any evidence to establish the validity of her expert’s methodology in the context of this case.”

Price v. Taylor, 466 S.E.2d 87 (Va. 1996). · cites it 4× “Thus, the testimony of these three witnesses was improper because it constituted conclusions of law in violation of Code §8.01-401.3. IV. Our conclusions regarding instructing the jury on fraudulent procurement and admission of the attorneys’ testimony require reversal of the…”

Com. v. Allen, 609 S.E.2d 4 (Va. 2005). · cites it 2× “In the absence of express statutory requirements for the qualification of an expert witness in this particular type of proceeding, we will apply the general rules applicable to expert *12 testimony in other civil cases.”

White v. Commonwealth, 616 S.E.2d 49 (Va. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “909 (codified at Code § 8.01-401.3 (partially abrogating rule in civil cases, as to testimony about purely factual rather than legal matters, and leaving intact "the exceptions to the `ultimate fact in issue' rule recognized in the Commonwealth prior to enactment of this…”

Show all 70 citing cases →

— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-401.3(A) — 17 cases

Blue Ridge Serv. of Va v. Saxon Shoes, 624 S.E.2d 55 (Va. 2006). “2 The General Assembly has determined that "scientific, technical, or other specialize[d]" expert testimony is admissible into evidence if it "will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.”

Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. Dungee, 520 S.E.2d 164 (Va. 1999).

David A. Parker Enter., Inc. v. Templeton, 467 S.E.2d 488 (Va. 1996). “He stated that the wounds had an "arcus" shape, consisting of initially shallow cuts, then deeper cuts, followed by more shallow cuts.”

Holmes v. John Doe, 515 S.E.2d 117 (Va. 1999).

Holcombe v. NationsBanc Fin. Servs. Corp., 450 S.E.2d 158 (Va. 1994).

— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-401.3(B) — 25 cases

Jenkins v. Commonwealth, 492 S.E.2d 131 (Va. 1997).

R.K. Chevrolet, Inc. v. Hayden, 480 S.E.2d 477 (Va. 1997).

Whitley v. Chamouris, 574 S.E.2d 251 (Va. 2003).

Price v. Taylor, 466 S.E.2d 87 (Va. 1996). “Thus, the testimony of these three witnesses was improper because it constituted conclusions of law in violation of Code §8.01-401.3. IV. Our conclusions regarding instructing the jury on fraudulent procurement and admission of the attorneys’ testimony require reversal of the…”

— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-401.3(C) — 1 case

Commonwealth v. Lemos, 34 Va. Cir. 312 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1994).

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.