Virginia Code
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-644 (2026)
Application for mandamus or prohibition
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Except as provided in § 2.2-3713, application for a writ of mandamus or a writ of prohibition shall be on petition verified by oath, after the party against whom the writ is prayed has been served with a copy of the petition and notice of the intended application a reasonable time before such application is made.
Code 1950, § 8-704; 1977, c. 617; 2009, c. 634.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1983–2026 · leading case: Jones v. Willard, 299 S.E.2d 504 (Va. 1983).
Jones v. Willard, 299 S.E.2d 504 (Va. 1983). “2 On brief, the Commission argues that claimant should have filed a petition under Code § 8.01-644 for a writ of mandamus “compelling VEC to grant a new evidentiary hearing.”
Hutchins v. Carrillo, 500 S.E.2d 277 (Va. Ct. App. 1998). “In this case, father could not reasonably have expected to obtain a writ of mandamus in the two hours remaining before the J & DR court clerk’s office officially closed for the day.”
In re: Vauter, 793 S.E.2d 793 (Va. 2016). “2d 827 , 829 (1962) ; see generally Code §§ 8.01-644 and -645. "It is a remedy provided by the common law to redress the grievance growing out of an encroachment of jurisdiction," and issues "properly out of a superior court to an inferior court, commanding them to cease from…”
Front Royal & Warren Cnty. Indus. Park Corp. v. Town of Front Royal, 922 F. Supp. 1131 (W.D. Va. 1996). “at 3 (citing Va.Code Ann. §§ 8.01-644 to 653.1). Additionally, the court held that the plaintiff could not recover damages based upon a claim of inverse condemnation pursuant to extant Virginia law: The gravamen of Petitioner’s claim is that it was denied the enhancement in…”
In Re Baskins, 430 S.E.2d 555 (Va. Ct. App. 1993). “See Code § 8.01-644. For the reasons that will become apparent in the text of this opinion, the remedy afforded by a writ of mandamus is not appropriate in this case.”
Town of Narrows v. Clear-View Cable TV. Inc., 315 S.E.2d 835 (Va. 1984). “1-315 provides that “the circuit courts of the counties in which towns may be situated shall have jurisdiction by mandamus, according to the provisions of [Chapter 25 (§ 8.01-644 to -653) of Title 8.01], to enforce compliance by the .”
Montgomery v. Sch. Bd., 18 Va. Cir. 248 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1989). “Since the request for a Writ of Mandamus is not properly before the Court, see Va. Code § 8.01-644 et seq., it has not been considered by the Court.”
Jennifer Petersen v. Spotsylvania Cnty. Pub. Sch. Bd. (Va. Ct. App. 2026). “2 2 In its motion to strike the amended petition, the school board argued that Code § 8.01-644 requires a petition for a writ of mandamus to be verified by oath, which Petersen had failed to do.”
Chester v. Beyeler, 79 Va. Cir. 642 (Augusta Cir. Ct. 2009). “Chester asked that the Court “issue a writ of mandamus pursuant to Section 8.01-644 against” each of the individual defendants: a.”
Front Royal v. Town of Front Royal, 29 Va. Cir. 226 (Warren Cir. Ct. 1992). “Va. Code §§ 8.01-644 through 8.01-653.1. No authority exists which would permit the plaintiff to recover its attorney’s fees from the defendant in this action.”
Toni Wood v. Diana C. Snipes & Leroy E. Snipes (Va. Ct. App. 1997). “See Code § 8.01-644 et seq. Accordingly, we do not treat this matter as a petition for writ of mandamus.”
Commonwealth v. Hoffman, 12 Va. Cir. 211 (Spotsylvania Cir. Ct. 1988). “Virginia Code § 8.01-644 et seq.) Mandamus lies to compel the performance of a ministerial act when there is a clear non-discretionary duty to perform the fact.”
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.