The Supreme Court of Virginia dismissed a petition for review in *Knudsen v. Taylor*, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the lower court failed to issue a required formal order denying immunity. The Nov. 26, 2025 ruling underscores the strict procedural requirements governing interlocutory appeals of immunity decisions under Virginia law.
The case centers on a petition filed by Alex P. Knudsen seeking review of immunity-related proceedings in the Circuit Court of the City of Petersburg. Knudsen had filed a plea in bar alleging sovereign immunity on Oct. 31, 2023, but the circuit court never issued a formal order denying that plea. Instead, the lower court entered an order on April 1, 2025, setting the case for jury trial without addressing the immunity question.
The Supreme Court's jurisdiction over such appeals stems from Virginia Code § 8.01-670.2(A), enacted by the General Assembly in 2023. The statute establishes narrow jurisdiction for immediate appellate review of immunity decisions, stating: "When, prior to the commencement of trial, the circuit court has entered in any pending civil action an order granting or denying a plea of sovereign, absolute, or qualified immunity that, if granted, would immunize the movant from compulsory participation in the proceeding, the order is eligible for immediate appellate review."
The court emphasized the "express and unambiguous terms" of this statute require a circuit court to first enter an order denying a plea of immunity before such ruling becomes eligible for appellate review. The Supreme Court cited its 2009 decision in *Comcast of Chesterfield County, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors* to support this interpretation, demonstrating that procedural requirements for jurisdictional statutes must be strictly observed.
"Our review of the record here reveals no such order," the court wrote. The justices explained that the circuit court's order setting the case for jury trial "is not appealable under Code § 8.01-670.2(A) because the circuit court never denied Knudsen's plea in bar alleging sovereign immunity."
This ruling reflects the Virginia Supreme Court's careful approach to its jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals. Unlike final judgments, which are generally appealable as of right, interlocutory orders can only be appealed in limited circumstances specifically authorized by statute. The 2023 law creating this immunity appeal pathway represents a legislative recognition that immunity determinations are sufficiently important to warrant immediate review, but the court's decision demonstrates that this avenue remains subject to strict procedural compliance.
The court's analysis highlights a common procedural pitfall in immunity litigation. When courts fail to explicitly rule on immunity pleas, parties may find themselves without recourse to immediate appellate review, even when immunity questions could potentially dispose of the entire case. This can force defendants who believe they are entitled to immunity to proceed through trial before obtaining appellate review of their immunity claims.
The Supreme Court granted the respondents' motion to dismiss and remanded the case to the Circuit Court of the City of Petersburg "to take such action it deems appropriate consistent with this order." This remand effectively returns the case to the lower court, which could now choose to formally address Knudsen's pending immunity plea.
Importantly, the court noted that its "conclusion here shall not prejudice the Petitioner's ability to advance any argument, including argument related to his entitlement to immunity, his demurrers, or the procedures used by the circuit court, on appeal" following any final judgment. This language preserves Knudsen's ability to raise these issues in a future appeal after trial, ensuring that the procedural dismissal does not foreclose substantive review of his immunity claims.
The decision serves as a reminder to trial courts that when immunity pleas are filed, explicit orders either granting or denying such pleas are necessary to trigger the appellate review process. For practitioners, the ruling underscores the importance of ensuring that procedural requirements for interlocutory appeals are strictly met, as jurisdictional defects cannot be waived and will result in dismissal regardless of the merits of the underlying claims.
The case also illustrates the broader tension between providing immediate appellate review for important legal questions and maintaining orderly judicial proceedings through strict adherence to jurisdictional requirements. While immunity determinations can be dispositive of entire cases, the Virginia Supreme Court's approach prioritizes clear procedural compliance over expedited review of potentially meritorious claims.