at 21.) The court disagrees, as the statute contains no such limitation. On the contrary, the statute is very broad, encompassing “any person,” and “any claim or demand.” “The language, ‘any claim or demand’ is broad enough to embrace every character of claim, whether legal or equitable.” Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v. Gill, 116 Va. 86, 81 S.E. 39, 42 (1914). Following this logic and the statu this statute, as only injunctive relief and mandamus may be obtained under that count. See infra. The plaintiff also argues that, by its terms, § 15.2-1248 potentially bars claims only against the County itself, and not against the individual defendants in their individual capacities, e.g., for frauds committed outside the scope of their duties. The court agrees. See Burk, 284 S.E.2d at 603 (<HOLDING>). The plaintiff further contends that §
recognizing that a board of elections is not a political subdivision and its members are not county officers holding that members of the board of trustees of an elementary school had standing to challenge the actions of the county board of education because they suffered an actual injury when the county board nullified their unanimous vote to reject a candidate for principal of the elementary school holding thatthe feres doctrine extends to bar a federal service members state law intentional tort claim against army supervisors holding that plaintiffs failure to allege compliance with these statutes did not bar his claim against members of county board of supervisors as individuals for illegal expenditures of public funds holding that under section 25303 the board of supervisors has a statutory duty to supervise the conduct of all county officers