<?xml version="1.0"?>
<law><site_title>Virginia Decoded</site_title><site_url>https://vacode.org</site_url><law_id>366453</law_id><section_number>48-17</section_number><catch_line>Enjoining nuisances involving illegal drug transactions</catch_line><edition url="https://vacode.org/2026/" slug="2026" current="TRUE" last_updated="2026-08-02">2026</edition><referred_to_by><reference>48-16</reference></referred_to_by><structure><unit label="title" level="1" order_by="104" identifier="48">Nuisances</unit><unit label="chapter" level="2" order_by="2" identifier="2">Houses of Prostitution, Etc.</unit></structure><text>
						<section><p>The attorney for the Commonwealth, or any citizen of the county, city, or town, where such a nuisance as is described in &#xA7;&#xA0;<a class="law" title="Certain premises deemed common nuisance; penalty" href="/18.2-258/">18.2-258</a> exists, may, in addition to any other remedies and punishment, maintain a suit in <span class="dictionary">equity</span> in the name of the Commonwealth to enjoin the same. The attorney for the Commonwealth shall not be required to <span class="dictionary">prosecute</span> any suit brought by a citizen under this section. In every case where the bill charges, on the knowledge or belief of the complainant, and is sworn to by two witnesses, that a nuisance exists as described in &#xA7;&#xA0;<a class="law" title="Certain premises deemed common nuisance; penalty" href="/18.2-258/">18.2-258</a>, a temporary <span class="dictionary">injunction</span> may be granted as soon as the bill is presented to the <span class="dictionary">court</span> provided reasonable notice has been given. The <span class="dictionary">injunction</span> shall enjoin and restrain any owners, tenants, their agents, employees, and any other person from contributing to or maintaining the nuisance and may impose such other requirements as the <span class="dictionary">court</span> deems appropriate. If, after a <span class="dictionary">hearing</span>, the <span class="dictionary">court</span> finds that the <span class="dictionary">material</span> <span class="dictionary">allegations</span> of the bill are true, although the premises complained of may not then be unlawfully used, it shall continue the <span class="dictionary">injunction</span> against such persons or premises for such period of time as it deems appropriate, with the right to dissolve the <span class="dictionary">injunction</span> upon a proper showing by the owner of the premises.</p></section></text><history>2004, c. 462.</history><metadata><court_decisions><item key="0"><name> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. Leona Brewer, as Personal Representative of the Estate of .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </name><case_number>03-1531</case_number><citation>363 F.3d 333</citation><date>2004-03-24</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/785671/leona-brewer-as-personal-representative-of-the-estate-of-edward-rose/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. 363 F.3d 333 .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit</court_html></item><item key="1"><name>Dole v. Shenandoah Baptist Church</name><case_number>Nos. 89-2341, 89-2369</case_number><citation>899 F.2d 1389</citation><date>1990-03-30</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8986733/dole-v-shenandoah-baptist-church/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. SPROUSE, Circuit Judge: .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit</court_html></item><item key="2"><name>Arcadia Mills v. Bankers' Trust Co.</name><case_number>No. 3514</case_number><citation>68 F.2d 323</citation><date>1934-01-04</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6960228/arcadia-mills-v-bankers-trust-co/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. NORTHCOTT, Circuit Judge. .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit</court_html></item><item key="3"><name>National Council for Adoption v. Jewell</name><case_number>Case No. 1:15-cv-00675-GBL</case_number><citation>156 F. Supp. 3d 727</citation><date>2015-10-20</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7317844/national-council-for-adoption-v-jewell/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>District Court, E.D. Virginia</court_html></item><item key="4"><name> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. In Re: Robert v. Matthews, United States of America, and .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </name><case_number>04-1113</case_number><citation>395 F.3d 477</citation><date>2005-01-26</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/788962/in-re-robert-v-matthews-united-states-of-america-and-state-of-north/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. 395 F.3d 477 .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit</court_html></item><item key="5"><name>Crawford v. Commonwealth</name><case_number>1194072</case_number><citation>686 S.E.2d 557</citation><date>2009-12-29</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1062279/crawford-v-commonwealth/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. *462UPON REHEARING EN BANC .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html><abbr title="Court of Appeals">COA</abbr></court_html></item><item key="6"><name>LaVay Corp. v. Dominion Federal Savings &amp; Loan Ass'n</name><case_number>Nos. 86-1699(L), 86-1703 and 86-1705</case_number><citation>830 F.2d 522</citation><date>1987-10-02</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8963458/lavay-corp-v-dominion-federal-savings-loan-assn/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. HARRISON L. WINTER, Chief Judge: .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit</court_html></item><item key="7"><name> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. The Lavay Corporation Gerard M. Lavay v. Dominion Federal .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </name><case_number>86-1699</case_number><citation>830 F.2d 522</citation><date>1987-11-06</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/495238/the-lavay-corporation-gerard-m-lavay-v-dominion-federal-savings-loan/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. 830 F.2d 522 .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit</court_html></item><item key="8"><name> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. Elizabeth Dole, Secretary, United States Department of Labor .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </name><case_number>89-2341</case_number><citation>899 F.2d 1389</citation><date>1990-04-05</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/539188/elizabeth-dole-secretary-united-states-department-of-labor-equal/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. 899 F.2d 1389 .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit</court_html></item><item key="9"><name>Wolford v. United States</name><case_number>Civil Action No. 1:09cv723. Criminal No. 1:06cr113</case_number><citation>722 F. Supp. 2d 664</citation><date>2010-07-02</date><url>https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2542215/wolford-v-united-states/</url><abstract> .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. 722 F.Supp.2d 664 (2010) .&#x202F;.&#x202F;. </abstract><court_html>District Court, E.D. Virginia</court_html></item></court_decisions></metadata></law>
