§ 8315. Damages in actions for identity theft.
In a civil action based on identity theft as defined in 18 Pa.C.S. § 4120 (relating
to identity theft), a court of competent jurisdiction may award damages as follows:
(1) Actual damages arising from the incident or $500, whichever is greater. Damages include
loss of money, reputation or property, whether real or personal. The court may, in
its discretion, award up to three times the actual damages sustained, but not less
than $500.
(2) Reasonable attorney fees and court costs.
(3) Additional relief the court deems necessary and proper.
(June 19, 2002, P.L.430, No.62, eff. 60 days)
2002 Amendment. Act 62 added section 8315.
Cross References. Section 8315 is referred to in section 5525 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Bailets, R. v. Pa. Tpk. Comm'n, Aplt., 181 A.3d 324 (Pa. 2018).
“PTC's Brief at 26-27, citing 42 Pa.C.S. § 8315 (actual damages arising from identity theft include harm to reputation); 42 Pa.”
East v. Workers' Comp. Appeal Bd., 828 A.2d 1016 (Pa. 2003).
· cites it 2× “§ 8313(a); 42 Pa.C.S. § 8315. Indeed, Sections 902 and 903 of the Workers' Compensation Act, repealed by Section 2(a) of the Act of April 28, 1978, provided for precedence of workers’ compensation appeals then brought in the courts of common pleas "over other civil actions” (to…”
Grimm v. Borough of Norristown, 226 F. Supp. 2d 606 (E.D. Pa. 2002).
“§ 1985 , a state law unreasonable search and seizure claim, a claim for wrongful use of civil proceedings under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8315, and a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the validity of a warrant issued on November 30, 2000.”
Johnson, T. v. Monro Muffler Brake (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).
· cites it 3× “The initial question before this Court is whether Johnson’s claim that he suffered “embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish and interference with business relationships” is compensable under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8315, which states: In a civil action based on identity theft as defined…”
Martin McCullagh v. Martin McCullagh (3rd Cir. 2020).
“at 10, and then claims that the Court erroneously required him to prove both possession and use, instead of just one or the other.”
Cononie v. Brunner (W.D. Pa. 2024).
“42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8315. ORDER And now, this 11th day of July 2024, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No.”
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.