44 Pennsylvania opinions name it 6 courts 1967–2026 13 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Donoughgreen2 sentences2014Commonwealth v. Do- nough, 377 Pa. 46 , 103 A.2d 694, 697 (1954). 2014Commonwealth v. Do- nough, 377 Pa. 46 , 103 A.2d 694, 697 (1954). | 4 | 4 |
Commonwealth v. Maldonadogreen2 sentences2017The clear and convincing evidence standard is the highest standard of proof utilized in civil proceedings, requiring “evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the [trier of fact] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts [in] issue.” Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 576 Pa. 101 , 838 A.2d 710, 715 (2003) (alterations in the original; internal quotation marks and citation omitted). [2] 2. 2017The clear and convincing evidence standard is the highest standard of proof utilized in civil proceedings, requiring “evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the [trier of fact] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts [in] issue.” Commonwealth v. Maldonado, 576 Pa. 101 , 838 A.2d 710, 715 (2003) (alterations in the original; internal quotation marks and citation omitted). [2] 2. | 2 | 2 |
In Re Franciscusgreen2 sentences2014See Franciscus, 369 A.2d at 1194 . 2014See Franciscus, 369 A.2d at 1194 . | 2 | 2 |
Sprague v. Waltergreen2 sentences2011See Sprague v. Walter, 656 A.2d 890 (Pa. Super. 1995). 2003See Sprague v. Walter, 441 Pa.Super. 1 , 656 A.2d 890, 904 (1995). | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Braiggreen2 sentences2005This standard requires evidence “so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” Matter of Braig, 520 Pa. 409 , 554 A.2d 493, 495 (1989). 2005This standard requires evidence “so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” Matter of Braig, 520 Pa. 409 , 554 A.2d 493, 495 (1989). | 2 | 2 |
Norton v. Glenngreen2 sentences2005Indeed, “[t]he actual malice standard goes so far as to forbid imposition of liability even in those instances where the defendant negligently publishes false, defamatory statements about a public figure or public official.” Norton v. Glenn, 580 Pa. 212 , 860 A.2d 48, 56 (2004). ¶ 12 “[T]he ‘actual malice’ standard is a constitutionally mandated safeguard, and, as such, must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, the highest standard of proof for civil claims.” Lewis, 833 A.2d at 192 . 2005Indeed, “[t]he actual malice standard goes so far as to forbid imposition of liability even in those instances where the defendant negligently publishes false, defamatory statements about a public figure or public official.” Norton v. Glenn, 580 Pa. 212 , 860 A.2d 48, 56 (2004). ¶ 12 “[T]he ‘actual malice’ standard is a constitutionally mandated safeguard, and, as such, must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, the highest standard of proof for civil claims.” Lewis, 833 A.2d at 192 . | 2 | 2 |
Commonwealth v. Batts, Q., Aplt.red1 sentence2026It is well known the burden of proof in a criminal case is the highest standard, beyond a reasonable doubt. [See Commonwealth v. Batts, 163 A.3d 410, 453 (Pa. 2017) (“Proof beyond a reasonable - 21 - J-S15028-26 doubt … is a criminal standard and carries the highest evidentiary burden.”).] The [trial] court did state that Mother’s criminal trial will not be weighed against her. | 1 | 1 |
Stewart v. Mottsgreen1 sentence2026Nardo v. City of Phila., 988 A.2d 740 , 741 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (citing Stewart v. Motts, 654 A.2d 535, 540 (Pa. 1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Smithgreen1 sentence2017The Commonwealth was required to prove every element of the crimes charged against K.B. “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 17 A.3d 873, 908 (Pa. 2011). “[T]he ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard is the highest standard of proof and applies to criminal proceedings that impact an individual’s liberty interest, an interest worthy of the highest protection.” In re S.H., 96 A.3d 448 , 455 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Griffingreen1 sentence2017He argues that a “sentence within the highest standard range (27-33 months), with all other sentences running concurrent, would protect the public, equate with the gravity of the offense in relation to the impact on the community, and provide for [Appellant’s] rehabilitative needs.” Id. at 30-31. 9 “Challenges to the discretionary aspects of sentencing do not entitle an appellant to review as of right.” Commonwealth v. Griffin, 65 A.3d 932, 935 (Pa. Super. 2013) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In re Estate of Cellagreen1 sentence2013O’ Donnell, supra; Adamski, supra. “The clear and convincing evidence standard is the highest standard of proof for civil claims” and “requires evidence so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In re Estate of Cella, 12 A.3d 374, 380 (Pa.Super.2010) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Suber v. Pennsylvania Commission on Crime & Delinquencygreen1 sentence2010Suber v. Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, 885 A.2d 678, 682 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005). | 1 | 1 |
Manning v. WPXI, INC.green1 sentence2010Manning v. WPXI, Inc., 886 A.2d 1137, 1144 (Pa.Super.2005), appeal denied, 589 Pa. 731 , 909 A.2d 305 (2006). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re WINSHIP
green
2 sentences2025Id. 2025Id. | 10 | 2025–2025 |
Curran v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.
green
2 sentences2019Moreover, evidence adduced is not adjudged by an objective standard; rather, “actual malice” must be proven applying a subjective standard by evidence “that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.” See Curran, 546 A.2d at 642 . 2019Moreover, evidence adduced is not adjudged by an objective standard; rather, “actual malice” must be proven applying a subjective standard by evidence “that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.” See Curran, 546 A.2d at 642 . | 3 | 2019–2019 |
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.
green
2 sentences2019Thus, the actual malice standard, by design, assures “that public debate will not suffer for lack of ‘imaginative expression’ or ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ which has traditionally added much to the discourse of this Nation.” Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 2 , 110 S.Ct. 2695 . “[T]he First Amendment requires that we protect some falsehood in order to protect speech that matters.” Thus, the “actual malice” standard is a constitutionally mandated safeguard and, as such, must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, the highest standard of proof for civil claims. 2019Thus, the actual malice standard, by design, assures “that public debate will not suffer for lack of ‘imaginative expression’ or ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ which has traditionally added much to the discourse of this Nation.” Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 2 , 110 S.Ct. 2695 . “[T]he First Amendment requires that we protect some falsehood in order to protect speech that matters.” Thus, the “actual malice” standard is a constitutionally mandated safeguard and, as such, must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, the highest standard of proof for civil claims. | 2 | 2003–2019 |
Lewis v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.
green
2 sentences2005Indeed, the actual malice standard “goes so far as to forbid imposition of liability even in those instances where the defendant negligently publishes false, defamatory statements about a public figure or public official.” Norton v. Glenn, 580 Pa. 212 , 860 A.2d 48, 56 (2004). ¶ 21 The actual malice standard “is a constitutionally mandated safeguard, and, as such, must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, the highest standard of proof for civil claims.” Lewis, 833 A.2d at 192 . 2005Indeed, “[t]he actual malice standard goes so far as to forbid imposition of liability even in those instances where the defendant negligently publishes false, defamatory statements about a public figure or public official.” Norton v. Glenn, 580 Pa. 212 , 860 A.2d 48, 56 (2004). ¶ 12 “[T]he ‘actual malice’ standard is a constitutionally mandated safeguard, and, as such, must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, the highest standard of proof for civil claims.” Lewis, 833 A.2d at 192 . | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Nardo v. City of Philadelphia
green
1 sentence2026Nardo v. City of Phila., 988 A.2d 740 , 741 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (citing Stewart v. Motts, 654 A.2d 535, 540 (Pa. 1995)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Commonwealth v. Caldwell
green
1 sentence2022Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Staudenmayer v. Staudenmayer
green
1 sentence2019"When faced with contradictory testimony regarding verba in praesenti, the party claiming a common law marriage may introduce evidence of constant cohabitation and reputation of marriage in support of his or her claim." Studenmayer, 714 A.2d at 1021 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In Re: Vencil, N. Appeal of: PA State Police
green
2 sentences2019The clear and convincing evidence standard is the highest standard of proof utilized in civil proceedings, requiring "evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the [trier of fact] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts [in] issue." In re Vencil, 638 Pa. 1 , 152 A.3d 235 , footnote 1 (Pa. 2017), citations omitted. 2019The clear and convincing evidence standard is the highest standard of proof utilized in civil proceedings, requiring "evidence that is so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the [trier of fact] to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts [in] issue." In re Vencil, 638 Pa. 1 , 152 A.3d 235 , footnote 1 (Pa. 2017), citations omitted. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Dick v. Commonwealth, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Driver Licensing
green
1 sentence2018“Clear and convincing evidence is the highest standard in the civil system.” Dick, 3 A.3d at 711 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Miller v. Keystone Insurance
green
2 sentences2018When a person is in a fiduciary relationship, that person has "the highest standard of duty implied by law ...." Miller v. Keystone Insurance Company , 535 Pa. 531 , 636 A.2d 1109 , 1116 (1994). 2018When a person is in a fiduciary relationship, that person has "the highest standard of duty implied by law ...." Miller v. Keystone Insurance Company , 535 Pa. 531 , 636 A.2d 1109 , 1116 (1994). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Yenchi, E. v. Ameriprise Financial, Aplts.
green
1 sentence2018As our Supreme Court in Yenchi v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. , 161 A.3d 811 , 819-20 (2017), explained: A fiduciary duty requires a party to act with the utmost good faith in furthering and advancing the other person's interests, including a duty to disclose all relevant information. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
G.H. v. Department of Public Welfare
green
1 sentence2017The Commonwealth was required to prove every element of the crimes charged against K.B. “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Commonwealth v. Smith, 17 A.3d 873, 908 (Pa. 2011). “[T]he ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ standard is the highest standard of proof and applies to criminal proceedings that impact an individual’s liberty interest, an interest worthy of the highest protection.” In re S.H., 96 A.3d 448 , 455 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Estate of Swift Ex Rel. Swift v. Northeastern Hospital of Philadelphia
green
1 sentence2014A business invitee is owed the highest standard of care purpose directly or indirectly connected with business dealings with the possessor Id. at 722-23 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Adamski v. Allstate Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2013O’ Donnell, supra; Adamski, supra. “The clear and convincing evidence standard is the highest standard of proof for civil claims” and “requires evidence so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In re Estate of Cella, 12 A.3d 374, 380 (Pa.Super.2010) (citations omitted). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
O'Donnell Ex Rel. Mitro v. Allstate Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2013O’ Donnell, supra; Adamski, supra. “The clear and convincing evidence standard is the highest standard of proof for civil claims” and “requires evidence so clear, direct, weighty, and convincing as to enable the trier of fact to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy of the truth of the precise facts in issue.” In re Estate of Cella, 12 A.3d 374, 380 (Pa.Super.2010) (citations omitted). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Manning v. WXPI, INC.
neutral
1 sentence2010Manning v. WPXI, Inc., 886 A.2d 1137, 1144 (Pa.Super.2005), appeal denied, 589 Pa. 731 , 909 A.2d 305 (2006). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Borough of Wilkinsburg v. Colella
green
1 sentence2010The petitioners’ reliance on the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court’s 2008 decision in Borough of Wilkinsburg v. Colella, 961 A.2d 265 (Pa. Commn. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Commonwealth, Department of Transportation v. E-Z Parks, Inc. green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Stiver v. Parker green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Schriner v. Pa. Power & Light Co. green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| Cline v. Pittsburg Railways Co. neutral | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| Lanigan v. LEWIS green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Angelo v. Pittsburgh Railways Co. neutral | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.