Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
49 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2025 17 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Carey v. Pennsylvania Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2025Because the so-called misidentification is merely a typographical error, Petitioners’ argument lacks merit. 8 Preponderance of the evidence is “the lowest evidentiary standard, . . . tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Carey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 61 A.3d 367, 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (Carey) (quotation omitted). 6 Rothey, 185 A.3d at 464-65 ; Carey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 61 A.3d 367, 372 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). 2025“A preponderance of the evidence standard, the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to ‘a more likely than not’ inquiry.” Carey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 61 A.3d 367, 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). 8 provisions of this act shall not apply.” Section 3101.1 of the RTKL, 65 P.S. § 67.3101.1. | 10 | 15 |
Delaware County v. Schaefer Ex Rel. Philadelphia Inquirergreen2 sentences2025“A preponderance of the evidence standard, the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Borough of Pottstown v. Suber-Aponte, 202 A.3d 173 , 180 n.11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (quoting Delaware County v. Schaefer, 45 A.3d 1149, 1156 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012)). 2021Inquirer, 45 A.3d 1149, 1156 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (“A preponderance of the evidence standard, the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.”). | 9 | 13 |
West Chester University of PA v. B. Schackner and The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and Bravo Group, Inc.green2 sentences2023Chester Univ. of Pa. v. Schackner, 124 A.3d 382, 393 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). 2020It is well settled that “[a]n agency may meet its burden through an unsworn attestation or a sworn affidavit.” Schackner, 124 A.3d at 393 . | 2 | 3 |
Helwig v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensinggreen2 sentences2016“A preponderance of the evidence standard, the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to ‘a more likely than not’ inquiry.” Helwig v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 99 A.3d 153, 158 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (quoting Carey v. Department of Corrections, 61 A.3d 367, 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013)). 2016“A preponderance of the evidence standard, the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to ‘a more likely than not’ inquiry.” Helwig v. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing, 99 A.3d 153, 158 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (quoting Carey v. Department of Corrections, 61 A.3d 367, 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013)). | 2 | 2 |
Smith Ex Rel. Smith Butz, LLC v. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protectiongreen2 sentences2021“The preponderance of the evidence standard, which is ‘the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.’” Smith on behalf of Smith Butz, LLC v. Pa. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 161 A.3d 1049 , 1059 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (citation omitted). 2021The Department filed a position statement and proffered the attestations of Mr. Kegg, who stated that these records fell under the noncriminal investigation 7 “The preponderance of the evidence standard, which is ‘the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.’” Smith on behalf of Smith Butz, LLC v. Pa. Dep’t of Env’t Prot., 161 A.3d 1049 , 1059 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (citation omitted). 8 Act of June 18, 1998, P.L. 655, 35 P.S. §§ 1331.1-1331.18. 9 exemption. | 1 | 6 |
Borough of Pottstown v. S. Suber-Apontegreen2 sentences2025“A preponderance of the evidence standard, the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Borough of Pottstown v. Suber-Aponte, 202 A.3d 173 , 180 n.11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (quoting Delaware County v. Schaefer, 45 A.3d 1149, 1156 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012)). 2021“A preponderance of the evidence standard, the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.”7 Borough of Pottstown v. Suber-Aponte, 202 A.3d 173 , 180 n.11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (quoting Del. | 1 | 3 |
Commonwealth v. Assorted Consumer Fireworksgreen2 sentences2019Id. at 1101 n.10 (citing Commonwealth v. Assorted Consumer Fireworks, 16 A.3d 554 , 558 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011)). 2011Commonwealth v. Assorted Consumer Fireworks, 16 A.3d 554, n. 10 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011). 11 . | 1 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. $6,425.00 Seized from Esquilingreen2 sentences2014Esquilin, 880 A.2d at 529 . 2011See Commonwealth v. $6,425 Seized from Esquilin, 583 Pa. 544, 555 , 880 A.2d 523, 529 (2005). 11 . | 1 | 2 |
Pennsylvania State Police v. Office of Open Recordsgreen1 sentence2025In addition, “[w]here a record falls within an exemption under Section 708(b) [of the RTKL], it is not a public record as defined by the RTKL and an agency is not required to redact the record.” Castillo v. Pa. State Police, 310 A.3d 831 , 836 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2024) (quoting Pa. State Police v. Off. of Open Recs., 5 A.3d 473, 481 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010)). 9 “A preponderance of the evidence standard, the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Del. | 1 | 1 |
Office of the Governor v. R.H. Davis, Jr.green1 sentence2025See Davis, 122 A.3d at 1191 ; Carey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 61 A.3d 367, 372 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). | 1 | 1 |
Mitchell v. Office of Open Recordsgreen1 sentence2021Twp. of Worcester v. Off. of Open Recs., 129 A.3d 44, 60 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016); Off. of the Governor v. Scolforo, 65 A.3d 1095, 1103-04 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (en banc); Mitchell v. Off. of Open Recs., 997 A.2d 1262, 1265 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). “[A] generic determination or conclusory statements are not sufficient to justify the exemption of public records.” Scolforo, 65 A.3d at 1103 . 9 “A preponderance of the evidence standard, the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Delaware Cnty. v. Schaefer ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Township of Worcester v. Office of Open Recordsgreen1 sentence2021Twp. of Worcester v. Off. of Open Recs., 129 A.3d 44, 60 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016); Off. of the Governor v. Scolforo, 65 A.3d 1095, 1103-04 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (en banc); Mitchell v. Off. of Open Recs., 997 A.2d 1262, 1265 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). “[A] generic determination or conclusory statements are not sufficient to justify the exemption of public records.” Scolforo, 65 A.3d at 1103 . 9 “A preponderance of the evidence standard, the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Delaware Cnty. v. Schaefer ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Office of the Governor v. Scolforogreen2 sentences2021Twp. of Worcester v. Off. of Open Recs., 129 A.3d 44, 60 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016); Off. of the Governor v. Scolforo, 65 A.3d 1095, 1103-04 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (en banc); Mitchell v. Off. of Open Recs., 997 A.2d 1262, 1265 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). “[A] generic determination or conclusory statements are not sufficient to justify the exemption of public records.” Scolforo, 65 A.3d at 1103 . 9 “A preponderance of the evidence standard, the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Delaware Cnty. v. Schaefer ex rel. 2021Twp. of Worcester v. Off. of Open Recs., 129 A.3d 44, 60 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016); Off. of the Governor v. Scolforo, 65 A.3d 1095, 1103-04 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (en banc); Mitchell v. Off. of Open Recs., 997 A.2d 1262, 1265 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). “[A] generic determination or conclusory statements are not sufficient to justify the exemption of public records.” Scolforo, 65 A.3d at 1103 . 9 “A preponderance of the evidence standard, the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Delaware Cnty. v. Schaefer ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Pennsylvania State Troopers Ass'n v. Scolforogreen1 sentence2019As such, the requested record, the employee complaint against the Requester, falls squarely within the exemption described in RTKL Section 708(b)(17)(i), 65 P.S. § 67.708(b)(17)(i), exempting records “relating to a noncriminal investigation, including . . . [c]omplaints submitted to an agency.” As stated, in order to establish an exemption from disclosure under the RTKL, an agency need only satisfy the preponderance of the evidence standard, which is the lowest evidentiary standard and “has been defined as ‘such proof as leads the fact-finder . . . to find that the existence of a contested fac | 1 | 1 |
Community Country Day School v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2019“A preponderance of the evidence standard, the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Delaware County v. Schaefer ex rel. promulgated pursuant to the Commonwealth Documents Law[,] [Act of July 31, 1968, P.L. 769, as amended, 45 P.S. §§ 1102-1602, 45 Pa.C.S. §§ 501-907,] have no force or effect and may not form the basis of an agency’s action.” Cmty. Country Day Sch. v. Dep’t of Educ., 414 A.2d 428, 431 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980). | 1 | 1 |
Department of Transportation v. Agricultural Lands Condemnation Approval Boardgreen1 sentence2019Lands Condemnation Approval Bd., 5 A.3d 821, 827 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010)). | 1 | 1 |
D'ALESSANDRO v. Pennsylvania State Policegreen1 sentence2017As such, our Supreme Court has held that “hearsay evidence may generally be received and considered during an administrative proceeding.” D’Alessandro v. Pennsylvania State Police, 937 A.2d 404, 411-12 (Pa. 2007) (citing A.Y. v. Department of Public Welfare, 641 A.2d 1148, 1150 (Pa. 1994)). 9 (a) General rule.--A copy of a record of governmental action or inaction authenticated as provided in section 6103 (relating to proof of official records) shall be admissible as evidence that the governmental action or inaction disclosed therein was in fact taken or omitted. (b) Existence of facts.--A cop | 1 | 1 |
A.Y. v. Commonwealth Department of Public Welfare, Allegheny County Children & Youth Servicesgreen1 sentence2017As such, our Supreme Court has held that “hearsay evidence may generally be received and considered during an administrative proceeding.” D’Alessandro v. Pennsylvania State Police, 937 A.2d 404, 411-12 (Pa. 2007) (citing A.Y. v. Department of Public Welfare, 641 A.2d 1148, 1150 (Pa. 1994)). 9 (a) General rule.--A copy of a record of governmental action or inaction authenticated as provided in section 6103 (relating to proof of official records) shall be admissible as evidence that the governmental action or inaction disclosed therein was in fact taken or omitted. (b) Existence of facts.--A cop | 1 | 1 |
Com. v. ARgreen1 sentence2014Commonwealth v. A.R., 990 A.2d 1, 4, n.5 (Pa. Super. 2010); see also Carey v. Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections, 61 A.3d 367, 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) - 10 - J-S68009-14 (“A preponderance of the evidence standard, the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to ‘a more likely than not’ inquiry.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jaeger v. Bureau of Workers' Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office
green
2 sentences2019Id. at 1101 n.10 (citing Commonwealth v. Assorted Consumer Fireworks, 16 A.3d 554 , 558 n.10 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011)). 2012Jaeger v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office (American Casualty of Reading do CHA), 24 A.3d 1097 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011). 10 With these principles in mind, this Court will address Schaefer’s requests by examining, in context, the plain language of the Personal Harm/Personal Security Exception. | 3 | 2012–2019 |
California Borough v. A.G. Rothey
green
1 sentence2025Because the so-called misidentification is merely a typographical error, Petitioners’ argument lacks merit. 8 Preponderance of the evidence is “the lowest evidentiary standard, . . . tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Carey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 61 A.3d 367, 374 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (Carey) (quotation omitted). 6 Rothey, 185 A.3d at 464-65 ; Carey v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 61 A.3d 367, 372 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
PA State Police, Aplt. v. Grove, M.
green
1 sentence2023Accordingly, the criminal investigation exemption covers prosecutorial materials including “notes of interviews with victims, suspects and witnesses assembled for the specific purpose of investigation.” Grove, 161 A.3d at 893 . 12 “A preponderance of the evidence standard, the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Delaware County v. Schaefer ex rel. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Sherry v. Radnor Township School District
green
1 sentence2021Dist., 20 A.3d 515 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). 19 “A preponderance of the evidence standard, the lowest evidentiary standard, is tantamount to a more likely than not inquiry.” Delaware County v. Schaefer ex rel. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Pa. State Police v. Slaughter
green
1 sentence2017This is the lowest evidentiary standard and, as such, “an ALJ must affirm the [PSP]’s determination if the [PSP] presents evidence showing that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the applicant was involuntarily committed pursuant to Section 302 or 303 of the MHPA.” Gorry, 144 A.3d at 217 (citing Slaughter, 138 A.3d at 73 ). 11 In addition, we also note that Section 505 of the Administrative Agency Law provides that “Commonwealth agencies shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence at agency hearings, and all relevant evidence of reasonably probative value may be received.” 2 Pa. C.S. § 50 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
R. Gorry v. PA State Police
green
1 sentence2017This is the lowest evidentiary standard and, as such, “an ALJ must affirm the [PSP]’s determination if the [PSP] presents evidence showing that it is ‘more likely than not’ that the applicant was involuntarily committed pursuant to Section 302 or 303 of the MHPA.” Gorry, 144 A.3d at 217 (citing Slaughter, 138 A.3d at 73 ). 11 In addition, we also note that Section 505 of the Administrative Agency Law provides that “Commonwealth agencies shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence at agency hearings, and all relevant evidence of reasonably probative value may be received.” 2 Pa. C.S. § 50 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Bowling v. Office of Open Records
green
1 sentence2016Bowling v. Office of Open Records, 75 A.3d 453 (Pa. 2013). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.