Coverage note: this corpus holds the
consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check
palegis.us.
§ 2804. Organizational hazing.
(a) Offense defined.--An organization that intentionally, knowingly or recklessly promotes or facilitates
a violation of section 2802 (relating to hazing) or 2803 (relating to aggravated hazing)
commits the offense of organizational hazing and shall be subject to any of the following
penalties:
(1) A fine of not more than $5,000 for each violation of section 2802.
(2) A fine of not more than $15,000 for each violation of section 2803.
(b) Penalties.--In addition to any other sentence imposed, if an organization commits the offense
of organizational hazing, the organization shall be subject to such other relief as
the court deems equitable.
Cross References. Section 2804 is referred to in section 2807 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
J.R. v. Greater Latrobe Sch. Dist. (W.D. Pa. 2023).
· cites it 4× “(quoting 18 Pa. C.S. § 2804; 2805). The District argues that Plaintiff fails to plead that the District had any knowledge of the hazing activity occurring on the wrestling team, and that the District thus could not have facilitated or promoted such activity.”
Jean v. Bucknell Univ. (M.D. Penn. 2021).
“Jean did not report any hazing by the Iota Chapter to Bucknell, nor does he claim that Bucknell was aware 93 18 Pa. C.S. § 2804(a). 94 The Court need not address the level of specificity implicated by section 2804 because the only alleged act of hazing was that which occurred…”
Jean v. Bucknell Univ. (M.D. Penn. 2021).
“75 18 Pa. C.S. § 2804. In relevant part, Section 2802 holds that “[a] person commits the offense of hazing if the person intentionally, knowingly or recklessly, for the purpose of initiating, admitting or affiliating a minor or student into or with an organization, or for the…”
— 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2804(a) — 1 case
Jean v. Bucknell Univ. (M.D. Penn. 2021).
“Jean did not report any hazing by the Iota Chapter to Bucknell, nor does he claim that Bucknell was aware 93 18 Pa. C.S. § 2804(a). 94 The Court need not address the level of specificity implicated by section 2804 because the only alleged act of hazing was that which occurred…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.