A. A victim has a civil cause of action against an individual who engaged in conduct that is prohibited under § 18.2-60.3, whether or not the individual has been charged or convicted for the alleged violation, for the compensatory damages incurred by the victim as a result of that conduct, in addition to the costs for bringing the action. If compensatory damages are awarded, a victim may also be awarded punitive damages.
B. As used in this section:
"Compensatory damages" includes damages for all of the defendant's acts prohibited by § 18.2-60.3.
"Victim" means a person who, because of the conduct of the defendant that is prohibited under § 18.2-60.3, was placed in reasonable fear of death, criminal sexual assault, or bodily injury to himself or to a minor child of whom the person is a parent or legal guardian.
C. No action shall be commenced under this section more than two years after the most recent conduct prohibited under § 18.2-60.3.
2001, c. 444.
Notes of Decisions
McGladrey & Pullen, L.L.P. v. Shrader, 62 Va. Cir. 401 (Rockingham Cir. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 3× “1 (punitive damages for injuries motivated by racial, religious, or ethnic animosity); Va. Code § 8.01-42.3 (punitive damages allowed for stalking victims if compensatory damages are recovered); Va.”
Williams v. HMSHost at Washington Dulles Int'l Airport (E.D. Va. 2024).
· cites it 21× “Plaintiff brings nine counts in his Complaint, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) (Counts 1-6), the federal and state anti-stalking laws, 18 U.”
William V. Davis v. Judith Christy (Va. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 7× “Although they later challenged Code §§ 8.01-42.3 and 18.2-60.3 as unconstitutional in their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, they did not present that argument to the trial court as a challenge to the stalking instruction actually given.”
N. Va. Kitchen, Bath & Basement v. Ellis (Va. 2021).
· cites it 4× “1 and stalking in violation of Code § 8.01-42.3. The circuit court subsequently dismissed NVKBB’s defamation complaint against Ellis with prejudice.”
Gill v. Food Lion LLC (W.D. Va. 2025).
· cites it 2× “” Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-42.3 (A). But even though Gill’s claim is recognized, it is not sufficiently pleaded to survive a motion to dismiss.”
Preston (W.D. Va. 2025).
“§ 8.01-42.3 . Williams responds that Preston failed to state a claim because she did not allege more than one instance of conduct that would reasonably place Preston in fear for her safety or the safety of her -4— daughter.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-42.3(A) — 3 cases
William V. Davis v. Judith Christy (Va. Ct. App. 2026).
“Although they later challenged Code §§ 8.01-42.3 and 18.2-60.3 as unconstitutional in their motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, they did not present that argument to the trial court as a challenge to the stalking instruction actually given.”
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.