Pa. Cons. Stat. » 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. (JUDICIARY) / Chapter 61
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6108 (2026)

  Business records.

✓ 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

§ 6108.  Business records.

(a)  Short title of section.--This section shall be known and may be cited as the "Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act."

(b)  General rule.--A record of an act, condition or event shall, insofar as relevant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation, and if it was made in the regular course of business at or near the time of the act, condition or event, and if, in the opinion of the tribunal, the sources of information, method and time of preparation were such as to justify its admission.

(c)  Definition.--As used in this section "business" includes every kind of business, profession, occupation, calling, or operation of institutions whether carried on for profit or not.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 147 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: In Re: A.J.R.-H. & I.G.R.-H. Apl of KJR Mother, 188 A.3d 1157 (Pa. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re: A.J.R.-H. & I.G.R.-H. Apl of KJR Mother, 188 A.3d 1157 (Pa. 2018). · cites it 11× “See also 42 Pa.C.S. § 6108(b) (“/-\ record of an act, condition or event shali, insofar as reievant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation, and if it was made in the regular course of business…”
Commonwealth v. Karch, 502 A.2d 1359 (Pa. 1986). · cites it 14× “142, § 2, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6108, provides: (b) General Rule.”
Bayview Loan Servicing LLC v. Wicker, 206 A.3d 474 (Pa. 2019). · cites it 4× “OPINION JUSTICE BAER We granted review to consider the application of Pennsylvania's business records exception to the rule against hearsay, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 803(6) and the Uniform Business Records *476 as Evidence Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6108. The parties…”
Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 610 A.2d 1020 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992). · cites it 8× “See: 42 Pa.C.S. § 6108; In re Indyk's Estate, 488 Pa.”
MB Fin. Bank v. Rao, J., 201 A.3d 784 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). · cites it 5× “Whether the Lost Note Affidavit constituted a business record pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6108 and the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence and whether the [c]ourt properly ruled it and associated testimony inadmissible.”
Commonwealth v. Carson, 913 A.2d 220 (Pa. 2006). · cites it 2× “42 Pa.C.S. § 6108(b); see also Pa.R.E. 808(6) (amended in 2001 to allow business records to be authenticated by certification).”
Commonwealth v. Travaglia, 661 A.2d 352 (Pa. 1995). · cites it 2× “This exception is codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 6108. 18 . Appellant also seems to be of the belief that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct when he refused to stipulate that Appellant lacked a prior criminal history.”
Turner v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 899 A.2d 381 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006). · cites it 4× “Claimant further contends that the referee failed to adhere to the requirements of Section 6108(b) of the Business Records as Evidence Act (Act), 42 Pa.C.S. § 6108(b), when he admitted the drug test results into evidence without authenticating testimony by the Medical Review…”
Am. States Ins. v. Maryland Cas. Co., 628 A.2d 880 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1993). · cites it 3× “Shaffner, a vice-president of the Robinson-Connor Agency, the successor to the Winters-Boland Agency which issued the PREA and the AEC insurance *190 policies and the custodian of the microfilm records, in introducing these records.”
Commonwealth v. Foreman, 797 A.2d 1005 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “803(6) "Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial/Records of Regularly Conducted Activity," and the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6108, he ignores the fact that trial counsel never objected to the reports and testimony at issue.”
Commonwealth v. May, 898 A.2d 559 (Pa. 2006). · cites it 2× “42 Pa.C.S. § 6108. [11] May is correct in asserting that the Investigative Report is a business record and, as such, is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule.”
Williams v. McClain, 520 A.2d 1374 (Pa. 1987). · cites it 3× “In affirming Common Pleas, Superior Court held that the medical opinion of a social worker contained in a hospital report on Williams was admissible under the Uniform Business Records as Evidence Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6108 (Business Records Act).”
Show all 147 citing cases →
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6108(6) — 1 case
Powell v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 513 A.2d 1139 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1986).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6108(a) — 1 case
Com. v. Bartucci, G. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6108(b) — 80 cases
In Re: A.J.R.-H. & I.G.R.-H. Apl of KJR Mother, 188 A.3d 1157 (Pa. 2018). “See also 42 Pa.C.S. § 6108(b) (“/-\ record of an act, condition or event shali, insofar as reievant, be competent evidence if the custodian or other qualified witness testifies to its identity and the mode of its preparation, and if it was made in the regular course of business…”
Commonwealth v. Karch, 502 A.2d 1359 (Pa. 1986). “142, § 2, 42 Pa.C.S. § 6108, provides: (b) General Rule.”
Turner v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 899 A.2d 381 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2006). “Claimant further contends that the referee failed to adhere to the requirements of Section 6108(b) of the Business Records as Evidence Act (Act), 42 Pa.C.S. § 6108(b), when he admitted the drug test results into evidence without authenticating testimony by the Medical Review…”
MB Fin. Bank v. Rao, J., 201 A.3d 784 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). “Whether the Lost Note Affidavit constituted a business record pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 6108 and the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence and whether the [c]ourt properly ruled it and associated testimony inadmissible.”
Commonwealth v. Carson, 913 A.2d 220 (Pa. 2006). “42 Pa.C.S. § 6108(b); see also Pa.R.E. 808(6) (amended in 2001 to allow business records to be authenticated by certification).”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6108(c) — 3 cases
Commonwealth v. Carson, 913 A.2d 220 (Pa. 2006). “42 Pa.C.S. § 6108(b); see also Pa.R.E. 808(6) (amended in 2001 to allow business records to be authenticated by certification).”
Bedford Cnty. CYS v. DHS (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2019).
M.T. Pettit v. Bureau of Driver Licensing (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2024).
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.