Va. Code » Title 8.01. Civil Remedies and Procedure » Chapter 26. Appeals to the Supreme Court » Article 2. When Granted
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-670 (2026)

In what cases awarded

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

A party aggrieved by a final decision of the Court of Appeals may petition the Supreme Court for an appeal in accordance with § 17.1-411.

Code 1950, § 8-462; 1977, c. 617; 1984, c. 703; 1997, c. 801; 2002, c. 107; 2005, c. 681; 2021, Sp. Sess. I, c. 489.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 72 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: Comcast of Chesterfield Cnty., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 672 S.E.2d 870 (Va. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Comcast of Chesterfield Cnty., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 672 S.E.2d 870 (Va. 2009). · cites it 40× “The provisions of Code § 8.01-670 state, in relevant part: A.”
Jenkins v. Mehra, 704 S.E.2d 577 (Va. 2011). · cites it 30× “Prior to this enactment, however, Code § 8.01-670's predecessor was already in existence and allowed a writ of error "to and from any final decree or judgment.”
Metro Mach. Corp. v. Mizenko, 419 S.E.2d 632 (Va. 1992). · cites it 16× “While I do not dispute the majority's analysis that Mizenko is the borrowed servant of Metro, nevertheless, I would hold that Metro's appeal of this interlocutory order is procedurally barred by Code § 8.01-670. [1] Pursuant to that section, Metro could only appeal from the…”
Am. Online, Inc. v. Anonymous Publicly Traded Co., 542 S.E.2d 377 (Va. 2001). · cites it 8× “Standard of Review Ordinarily, a trial court’s discovery orders are not subject to review on direct appeal because they are not final within the contemplation of Code § 8.01-670. However, an order granting or refusing a motion to quash or issue a protective order, in a…”
McManama v. Plunk, 458 S.E.2d 759 (Va. 1995). · cites it 8× “is a final judgment in a civil case appealable under" Code § 8.01-670 (providing for appeals of final judgments).”
Robert Jared Newton v. Rachel Angeline Jones, f/k/a Rachel Angeline Newton, 781 S.E.2d 759 (Va. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “1 or Title 20” In Jenkins , the Supreme Court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal under Code § 8.01-670(A)(3) 2 from a judgment refusing to find civil contempt.”
Virginia Beach Beautification Comm'n v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 344 S.E.2d 899 (Va. 1986). · cites it 4× “Consequently, guided by the manner in which the word “agency” has been employed in administrative law enactments, we believe the General Assembly did not intend that boards of zoning appeals be included within the meaning of “administrative agency” as used in § 17-116.05(1).”
Virginia Emp. Comm'n v. City of Virginia Beach, 284 S.E.2d 595 (Va. 1981). · cites it 8× “The dispositive issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Virginia Employment Commission is a “person aggrieved” by the judgments of the courts below within the meaning of Code § 8.01-670. 1 A. The City of Virginia Beach Case Anne Guizzetti, a clerk-typist employed by the…”
Seguin v. Northrop Grumman Sys. Corp., 672 S.E.2d 877 (Va. 2009). · cites it 6× “In this regard, Northrop Grumman asserts that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Seguin's appeal because Code § 8.01-581.016, contained in the Virginia Uniform Arbitration Act, does not confer any right to appeal from an order compelling arbitration.”
Nusbaum v. Berlin, 641 S.E.2d 494 (Va. 2007). · cites it 2× “Nusbaum petitioned for an appeal to this Court pursuant to Code § 8.01-670(A)(3) from the circuit court's judgment imposing the monetary sanction.”
Thompson Ex Rel. Thompson v. Skate Am., Inc., 540 S.E.2d 123 (Va. 2001). · cites it 2× “Code § 8.01-670(A)(3); see also, e.g., Hinchey v.”
Commonwealth of Virginia, Dep't of Educ. v. Fairfax Cnty. Sch. Bd., 645 S.E.2d 337 (Va. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “That amendment added the following language: “Except in cases where appeal from a final judgment lies in the Court of Appeals, as provided in § 17.”
Show all 72 citing cases →
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-670(1)(f) — 1 case
Comcast of Chesterfield Cnty., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 672 S.E.2d 870 (Va. 2009). “The provisions of Code § 8.01-670 state, in relevant part: A.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-670(A) — 6 cases
Am. Online, Inc. v. Anonymous Publicly Traded Co., 542 S.E.2d 377 (Va. 2001). “Standard of Review Ordinarily, a trial court’s discovery orders are not subject to review on direct appeal because they are not final within the contemplation of Code § 8.01-670. However, an order granting or refusing a motion to quash or issue a protective order, in a…”
Iliff v. Richards, 272 S.E.2d 645 (Va. 1980).
Caine v. Freier, 564 S.E.2d 122 (Va. 2002).
Black v. Eagle, 445 S.E.2d 662 (Va. 1994).
CVAS 2, LLC v. City of Fredericksburg (Va. 2015).
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-670(A)(1) — 2 cases
Comcast of Chesterfield Cnty., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 672 S.E.2d 870 (Va. 2009). “The provisions of Code § 8.01-670 state, in relevant part: A.”
Rutter v. Oakwood Living Centers of Va., 710 S.E.2d 460 (Va. 2011).
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-670(A)(1)(a) — 1 case
Comcast of Chesterfield Cnty., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 672 S.E.2d 870 (Va. 2009). “The provisions of Code § 8.01-670 state, in relevant part: A.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-670(A)(1)(e) — 1 case
Comcast of Chesterfield Cnty., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 672 S.E.2d 870 (Va. 2009). “The provisions of Code § 8.01-670 state, in relevant part: A.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-670(A)(1)(f) — 1 case
Comcast of Chesterfield Cnty., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 672 S.E.2d 870 (Va. 2009). “The provisions of Code § 8.01-670 state, in relevant part: A.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-670(A)(3) — 31 cases
Jenkins v. Mehra, 704 S.E.2d 577 (Va. 2011). “Prior to this enactment, however, Code § 8.01-670's predecessor was already in existence and allowed a writ of error "to and from any final decree or judgment.”
Robert Jared Newton v. Rachel Angeline Jones, f/k/a Rachel Angeline Newton, 781 S.E.2d 759 (Va. Ct. App. 2016). “1 or Title 20” In Jenkins , the Supreme Court held that it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal under Code § 8.01-670(A)(3) 2 from a judgment refusing to find civil contempt.”
Comcast of Chesterfield Cnty., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 672 S.E.2d 870 (Va. 2009). “The provisions of Code § 8.01-670 state, in relevant part: A.”
Virginia Beach Beautification Comm'n v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 344 S.E.2d 899 (Va. 1986). “Consequently, guided by the manner in which the word “agency” has been employed in administrative law enactments, we believe the General Assembly did not intend that boards of zoning appeals be included within the meaning of “administrative agency” as used in § 17-116.05(1).”
Seguin v. Northrop Grumman Sys. Corp., 672 S.E.2d 877 (Va. 2009). “In this regard, Northrop Grumman asserts that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Seguin's appeal because Code § 8.01-581.016, contained in the Virginia Uniform Arbitration Act, does not confer any right to appeal from an order compelling arbitration.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-670(A)(l)(d) — 1 case
In re O'Neil, 446 S.E.2d 475 (Va. Ct. App. 1994).
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-670(B) — 3 cases
Comcast of Chesterfield Cnty., Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 672 S.E.2d 870 (Va. 2009). “The provisions of Code § 8.01-670 state, in relevant part: A.”
Chosar Corp. v. Owens, 370 S.E.2d 305 (Va. 1988).
Jeneary v. Commonwealth, 551 S.E.2d 321 (Va. 2001).
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-670(B)(1) — 3 cases
Fancher v. Fagella, 650 S.E.2d 519 (Va. 2007).
Ceyte v. Ceyte, 278 S.E.2d 791 (Va. 1981).
Cnty. of Fairfax v. Fleet Indus. Park Ltd. P'ship, 410 S.E.2d 669 (Va. 1991).
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-670(B)(2) — 3 cases
Jones v. Brandt, 645 S.E.2d 312 (Va. 2007).
Sovran Bank, N. A. v. Creative Indus., Inc., 425 S.E.2d 504 (Va. 1993).
CVAS 2, LLC v. City of Fredericksburg (Va. 2015).
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-670(B)(3) — 7 cases
Metro Mach. Corp. v. Mizenko, 419 S.E.2d 632 (Va. 1992). “While I do not dispute the majority's analysis that Mizenko is the borrowed servant of Metro, nevertheless, I would hold that Metro's appeal of this interlocutory order is procedurally barred by Code § 8.01-670. [1] Pursuant to that section, Metro could only appeal from the…”
Jenkins v. Mehra, 704 S.E.2d 577 (Va. 2011). “Prior to this enactment, however, Code § 8.01-670's predecessor was already in existence and allowed a writ of error "to and from any final decree or judgment.”
Marriott v. Harris, 368 S.E.2d 225 (Va. 1988).
Shortridge v. Deel, 299 S.E.2d 500 (Va. 1983).
Butler v. Hayes, 487 S.E.2d 229 (Va. 1997).
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.