Pa. Cons. Stat. » 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. (JUDICIARY) / Chapter 83

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8342

 Justification a defense.

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

§ 8342.  Justification a defense.

In all civil actions for libel, the plea of justification shall be accepted as an adequate and complete defense, when it is pleaded, and proved to the satisfaction of the jury, under the direction of the court as in other cases, that the publication is substantially true and is proper for public information or investigation, and has not been maliciously or negligently made.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases, 1986–2010 · leading case: Mishoe v. Erie Insurance
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mishoe v. Erie Insurance (2003) pa · cites it 2× “"); 42 Pa.C.S. § 8342 ("In all civil actions for libel, the plea of justification shall be accepted .”
Bobb v. Kraybill (1986) pa · cites it 2× “Thus, our inquiry becomes whether, in viewing the evidence relevant to a motion for summary judgment most favorably toward appellant as the non-moving party, there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to the substantial truth of the stories reported.”
Smith v. Wagner (1991) pasuperct “Moreover, the averment that the defendants acted with the intent to destroy appellant’s career and business interests was sufficient, if proven, to defeat any qualified privilege which appellees may have had for their numerous publications.”
Alston v. PW-Philadelphia Weekly (2009) pacommwct “In pursuing an action for defamation against a defendant, a plaintiff must establish: (1) the defamatory character of the communication; (2) its publication by the defendant; (3) its application to the plaintiff; (4) the understanding by the recipient of its defamatory meaning;…”
Miller v. York Newspapers Inc. (2005) pactcompldauphi “” 42 Pa.C.S. §8342. “Minor inaccuracies do not amount to falsity so long as ‘the substance, the gist, the sting, of the libelous charge be justified.”
Grudis v. Roaring Brook Township (2010) pactcompllackaw “Therefore, defendant’s preliminary objection that plaintiffs do not have a cause of action for willful misconduct is granted, paragraph 16 of the third amended complaint shall be stricken.”
Ragland v. Gray (2000) pactcomplphilad “§3927(a) which provides that a person who obtains property upon agreement, or subject to a known obligation, to make specified payments or other disposition, is guilty of theft if he intentionally deals with the property obtained as his own and fails to make the required payment…”
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8342(b)(5) — 1 case
Grudis v. Roaring Brook Township (2010) pactcompllackaw “Therefore, defendant’s preliminary objection that plaintiffs do not have a cause of action for willful misconduct is granted, paragraph 16 of the third amended complaint shall be stricken.”
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.