Va. Code » Title 8.01. Civil Remedies and Procedure » Chapter 26.2. Appeals Generally » Article 3. Limitations; Hearing and Decision
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-681 (2026)

Decision of appellate court

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

The appellate court shall affirm the judgment if there is no error therein, and reverse the same, in whole or in part, if erroneous, and enter such judgment as to the court shall seem right and proper and shall render final judgment upon the merits whenever, in the opinion of the court, the facts before it are such as to enable the court to attain the ends of justice. A civil case shall not be remanded for a trial de novo except when the ends of justice require it, but the appellate court shall, in the order remanding the case, if it be remanded, designate upon what questions or points a new trial is to be had.

Code 1950, § 8-493; 1977, c. 617; 1984, c. 703.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Farley v. Farley, 387 S.E.2d 794 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Farley v. Farley, 387 S.E.2d 794 (Va. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “See Code § 8.01-681. We therefore affirm the trial court’s decision to transfer jurisdiction.”
Benderson Dev. Co. v. Sciortino, 372 S.E.2d 751 (Va. 1988). · cites it 4× “The motion for judgment contains an unusually detailed recital of facts which we take as true for the purpose of reviewing the trial court’s ruling on demurrer. In his grounds of defense, the defendant admits all facts essential to our decision.”
Tiller v. Owen, 413 S.E.2d 51 (Va. 1992). · cites it 4× “NOTES [*] Based on our holding here, we need not address the issue whether the trial court erred in failing to find that the money Owen delivered to Tiller for the down payment was a gift.”
Commonwealth v. Holtz, 408 S.E.2d 561 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “Because the facts before the court are sufficient to enable this Court to attain the ends of justice, I would reverse and, pursuant to Code § 8.01-681, enter judgment in favor of the Commonwealth declaring Holtz to be an habitual offender.”
Julie A. Rubino v. Justin Rubino, 767 S.E.2d 260 (Va. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Code § 8.01-681 (emphasis added). Contrary to father’s assertion, the statute does not indicate that a remand to a lower court is a remedy that can be waived by an appellant.”
Lee v. Bell, 379 S.E.2d 464 (Va. 1989). · cites it 4× “For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the trial court's ruling on the rental claim, but reverse its ruling limiting to $1,000 the damages for the electrical fixture removal. [2] Because the amount of such damages is uncontradicted and sufficient facts are before the Court to…”
Rotonda Condo. Unit Owners Ass'n v. Rotonda Assocs., 380 S.E.2d 876 (Va. 1989). · cites it 2× “Code § 8.01-681. Affirmed. * It is conceivable that one or more unit owners might have taken delivery of a deed after July 1, 1981, but before expiration of the appropriate warranty and limitation periods.”
Frey v. Frey, 416 S.E.2d 40 (Va. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “On this record, we cannot say, as a matter of law, that the relationship between Judith Frey and Hall was or was not “cohabitation, analogous to a marriage.” Accordingly, because the facts necessary to a resolution of the case have not been resolved and because the trial court…”
Town & Country Props., Inc. v. Riggins, 457 S.E.2d 356 (Va. 1995). · cites it 2× “See Code § 8.01-681. Modified and Affirmed.”
Tysons Int'l Ltd. P'ship v. Bd. of Supervisors, 400 S.E.2d 151 (Va. 1991). · cites it 4× “We noted, however, that Code § 8.01-681 requires this Court, when reversing a case on appeal, to "`render final judgment upon the merits whenever, in the opinion of the court, the facts before it are such as to enable the court to attain the ends of justice.”
Stancill v. Ford Motor Co., 421 S.E.2d 872 (Va. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Code § 8.01-681. Reversed and remanded. Koontz, C.”
Bd. of Supervisors v. S. Cross Coal Corp., 380 S.E.2d 636 (Va. 1989). · cites it 2× “Because the Surety failed to carry its burden of producing evidence to show that the work could have been completed for a lesser amount, it is bound by the result. Thus, the jury’s verdict against the principals is the measure of the damages to which the Board is entitled from…”
Show all 36 citing cases →
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.