Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2805 (2026)
Institutional hazing.
✓ current as of May 2026
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.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
PA-LEGpalegis.us
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§ 2805. Institutional hazing.
An institution which 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 institutional 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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Griffin, 207 A.3d 827 (Pa. 2019).
Commonwealth v. Griffin, 207 A.3d 827 (Pa. 2019). “18 Pa.C.S. § 2805 (emphasis added). The upshot is that Griffin's definition of the word "or" would wreak havoc on these and many other provisions of the Crimes Code.”
Humphries v. Barber (M.D. Penn. 2021). “222 For a University to be liable under the Antihazing Law, the plaintiff must first show an underlying violation of the statute.”
Zahorchak v. Neshannock Twp. Sch. Dist., 1 Pa. D. & C.5th 410 (2006). “§3302(b); (3) Recklessly endangering another person, pursuant to 18 Pa.C.S. §2805; and (4) Possession of weapon on school property, pursuant to 24 P.”
Humphries v. Barber (M.D. Penn. 2020). “Plaintiff has pleaded sufficient facts about Penn State’s knowledge of the alleged incidents that, if proven, could support a theory that Penn State “facilitated” the hazing in violation of 18 Pa. C.S. § 2805’s prohibition regarding institutional hazing.”
J.R. v. Greater Latrobe Sch. Dist. (W.D. Pa. 2023). “Plaintiff has pled that the District had institutional awareness of extreme hazing that had occurred on the wrestling team, and that it affirmatively required the ninth-grade wrestlers to report to a gymnasium where they would be unsupervised for a period of forty-five minutes…”
Isaiah Humphries v. Pennsylvania State Univ. (3rd Cir. 2026). “§ 5354 (repealed), with 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2805. 7 to control the conduct of a third party to protect another from harm,” unless the defendant “stands in some special relationship with either the person whose conduct needs to be controlled or in a relationship with the…”
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.