Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343 (2026)

Burden of proof.

✓ 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

§ 8343. Burden of proof.

(a) Burden of plaintiff.--In an action for defamation, the plaintiff has the burden of proving, when the issue is properly raised:

(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.

(5) The understanding by the recipient of it as intended to be applied to the plaintiff.

(6) Special harm resulting to the plaintiff from its publication.

(7) Abuse of a conditionally privileged occasion.

(b) Burden of defendant.--In an action for defamation, the defendant has the burden of proving, when the issue is properly raised:

(1) The truth of the defamatory communication.

(2) The privileged character of the occasion on which it was published.

(3) The character of the subject matter of defamatory comment as of public concern.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 277 cases (83 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: T. Joseph v. The Scranton Times, Aplt, 129 A.3d 404 (Pa. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

T. Joseph v. The Scranton Times, Aplt, 129 A.3d 404 (Pa. 2015). · cites it 6× “2d at 242 ; 42 Pa.C.S. § 8343). The Amici contend the rejection of presumed damages in Walker has been the rule in Pennsylvania for two decades and the Superior Court erred in departing from the rule in the case sub judice.”

Mzamane v. Winfrey, 693 F. Supp. 2d 442 (E.D. Pa. 2010). · cites it 5× “42 Pa.C.S. § 8343(a). Once a plaintiff establishes these elements, the defendant has the burden of proving the following, when relevant to the claim: (1) The truth of the defamatory communication.”

Constantakis, K. v. Bryan Advisory, 275 A.3d 998 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022). · cites it 8× “42 Pa.C.S. § 8343(a). When the issue is properly raised, the defendant has the burden of proving: (1) the truth of the defamatory communication; (2) the privileged character of the occasion on which it was published; and (3) the character of the subject matter of defamatory…”

Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986). · cites it 2× “See also 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343 (b)(1) (1982) (defendant has the burden of proving the truth of a defamatory statement).”

Tucker v. Philadelphia Daily News, 848 A.2d 113 (Pa. 2004). · cites it 2× “00 in compensation for damage to their sexual relationship was capable of a defamatory meaning.”

Geyer v. Steinbronn, 506 A.2d 901 (Pa. 1986). · cites it 4× “42 Pa.C.S. § 8343(a)(1), (4), (6), (7). Appellants make a patently meritless attempt to argue that the statements at issue were non-defamatory.”

Rutt v. Bethlehems' Globe Publ'g Co., 484 A.2d 72 (Pa. 1984). · cites it 4× “Section 8343 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8343, provides: § 8343. Burden of proof (a) Burden of plaintiff.”

Meyers, M. v. Certifiied Guar. Co., LLC, 221 A.3d 662 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019). · cites it 3× “42 Pa.C.S. § 8343(a). A defendant may prevail against a plaintiff in a defamation suit by proving: “(1) The truth of the defamatory communication; (2) The privileged character of the occasion on which it was published; [and] (3) The character of the subject matter of defamatory…”

Synygy, Inc. v. Scott-Levin, Inc., 51 F. Supp. 2d 570 (E.D. Pa. 1999). · cites it 4× “42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 8343(a)(1)— (7) (1998).”

Rockwell v. Allegheny Health, Educ. & Rsch. Found., 19 F. Supp. 2d 401 (E.D. Pa. 1998). · cites it 9× “Donnelly (“Defendant” or “Donnelly”) under Count II for defamation pursuant to 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 8343. Before this Court is Defendant Donnelly’s Motion to Dismiss Count II pursuant to Fed.”

Joseph v. Scranton Times, L.P., 89 A.3d 251 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014). · cites it 3× “See also 42 Pa.C.S. § 8343(a) (providing elements of the cause of action).”

Hepps v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 485 A.2d 374 (Pa. 1984). · cites it 3× “13 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8343(a)(7); Corabi, supra, 441 Pa.”

Show all 277 citing cases →

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(1) — 1 case

Dusman, C. v. Padasak, J., Jr. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(2) — 1 case

Williams v. Hill, 66 Pa. D. & C.4th 43 (2004).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(7) — 1 case

Wilson v. Am. Gen. Fin., Inc., 807 F. Supp. 2d 291 (W.D. Pa. 2011).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(a) — 129 cases

T. Joseph v. The Scranton Times, Aplt, 129 A.3d 404 (Pa. 2015). “2d at 242 ; 42 Pa.C.S. § 8343). The Amici contend the rejection of presumed damages in Walker has been the rule in Pennsylvania for two decades and the Superior Court erred in departing from the rule in the case sub judice.”

Tucker v. Philadelphia Daily News, 848 A.2d 113 (Pa. 2004). “00 in compensation for damage to their sexual relationship was capable of a defamatory meaning.”

Pelagatti v. Cohen, 536 A.2d 1337 (Pa. 1987).

Castellani, R., Aplts. v. Scranton Times, 124 A.3d 1229 (Pa. 2015).

Meyers, M. v. Certifiied Guar. Co., LLC, 221 A.3d 662 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2019). “42 Pa.C.S. § 8343(a). A defendant may prevail against a plaintiff in a defamation suit by proving: “(1) The truth of the defamatory communication; (2) The privileged character of the occasion on which it was published; [and] (3) The character of the subject matter of defamatory…”

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(a)(1) — 14 cases

Geyer v. Steinbronn, 506 A.2d 901 (Pa. 1986). “42 Pa.C.S. § 8343(a)(1), (4), (6), (7). Appellants make a patently meritless attempt to argue that the statements at issue were non-defamatory.”

Thomas Merton Ctr. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 442 A.2d 213 (Pa. 1981).

Medico, Philip T. v. Time, Inc, 643 F.2d 134 (3rd Cir. 1981).

Renita Hill v. William Cosby, Jr., 665 F. App'x 169 (3rd Cir. 2016).

Connor v. Archdiocese of Philadelphia, 975 A.2d 1084 (Pa. 2009).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(a)(2) — 3 cases

Jennifer Cushman v. Trans Union Corp., 115 F.3d 220 (3rd Cir. 1997).

Strange v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 867 F. Supp. 1209 (E.D. Pa. 1994).

Dusman, C. v. Padasak, J., Jr. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(a)(3) — 5 cases

Mzamane v. Winfrey, 693 F. Supp. 2d 442 (E.D. Pa. 2010). “42 Pa.C.S. § 8343(a). Once a plaintiff establishes these elements, the defendant has the burden of proving the following, when relevant to the claim: (1) The truth of the defamatory communication.”

Renita Hill v. William Cosby, Jr., 665 F. App'x 169 (3rd Cir. 2016).

Tricome v. Welch, 17 Pa. D. & C.5th 83 (2010).

Jeremiah Kane v. Chester Cnty. (3rd Cir. 2020).

Joseph v. Scranton Times, 23 Pa. D. & C.5th 129 (2011).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(a)(4) — 6 cases

Synygy, Inc. v. Scott-Levin, Inc., 51 F. Supp. 2d 570 (E.D. Pa. 1999). “42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 8343(a)(1)— (7) (1998).”

Hoover v. Peerless Publications, Inc., 461 F. Supp. 1206 (E.D. Pa. 1978).

Fox v. Smith, Appeal of: Smith, S. (Pa. 2021).

Fox v. Smith, Appeal of: Pascale & Baum (Pa. 2021).

Fox v. Smith, Appeal of: Luongo, E. (Pa. 2021).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(a)(5) — 1 case

Zerpol Corp. v. DMP Corp., 561 F. Supp. 404 (E.D. Pa. 1983).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(a)(6) — 11 cases

Joseph v. Scranton Times, L.P., 89 A.3d 251 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2014). “See also 42 Pa.C.S. § 8343(a) (providing elements of the cause of action).”

Synygy, Inc. v. Scott-Levin, Inc., 51 F. Supp. 2d 570 (E.D. Pa. 1999). “42 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 8343(a)(1)— (7) (1998).”

Beverly Enter., Inc. Donald L. Dotson v. Rosemary Trump Serv. Employees Int'l Union Local 585, 182 F.3d 183 (3rd Cir. 1999).

Russoli v. Salisbury Twp., 126 F. Supp. 2d 821 (E.D. Pa. 2000).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(a)(7) — 10 cases

Hepps v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 485 A.2d 374 (Pa. 1984). “13 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8343(a)(7); Corabi, supra, 441 Pa.”

Mathis v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 455 F. Supp. 406 (E.D. Pa. 1978).

Medure v. Vindicator Printing Co., 273 F. Supp. 2d 588 (W.D. Pa. 2002).

Oweida v. Tribune-Review Publ'g Co., 599 A.2d 230 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991).

Frymire v. Painewebber, Inc. (In Re Frymire), 96 B.R. 525 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1989).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(a)(l) — 8 cases

Francis Cheney, II v. Daily News LP, 654 F. App'x 578 (3rd Cir. 2016).

Guardian Life Ins. of Am. v. Am. Guardian Life Assurance Co., 943 F. Supp. 509 (E.D. Pa. 1996).

Allen Organ Co. v. Galanti Organ Builders Inc., 798 F. Supp. 1162 (E.D. Pa. 1992).

Johnson v. Resources for Human Dev., Inc., 860 F. Supp. 218 (E.D. Pa. 1994).

Lawrence v. Walker, 9 Pa. D. & C.5th 225 (2009).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(b) — 37 cases

Constantakis, K. v. Bryan Advisory, 275 A.3d 998 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022). “42 Pa.C.S. § 8343(a). When the issue is properly raised, the defendant has the burden of proving: (1) the truth of the defamatory communication; (2) the privileged character of the occasion on which it was published; and (3) the character of the subject matter of defamatory…”

Rutt v. Bethlehems' Globe Publ'g Co., 484 A.2d 72 (Pa. 1984). “Section 8343 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8343, provides: § 8343. Burden of proof (a) Burden of plaintiff.”

Walnut Street Assocs., Inc. v. Brokerage Concepts, Inc., 20 A.3d 468 (Pa. 2011).

Vivian, J. v. St. Luke's Hosp., 318 A.3d 890 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(b)(1) — 15 cases

Hepps v. Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc., 485 A.2d 374 (Pa. 1984). “13 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8343(a)(7); Corabi, supra, 441 Pa.”

Geyer v. Steinbronn, 506 A.2d 901 (Pa. 1986). “42 Pa.C.S. § 8343(a)(1), (4), (6), (7). Appellants make a patently meritless attempt to argue that the statements at issue were non-defamatory.”

Medure v. Vindicator Printing Co., 273 F. Supp. 2d 588 (W.D. Pa. 2002).

Egli v. Strimel, 251 F. Supp. 3d 827 (E.D. Pa. 2017).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(b)(2) — 5 cases

Martin v. Finley, 349 F. Supp. 3d 391 (M.D. Penn. 2018).

F.B. Leopold Co. v. Roberts Filter Mfg. Co., 882 F. Supp. 433 (W.D. Pa. 1995).

Lilac Meadows, Inc. v. Rivello, 25 Pa. D. & C.5th 250 (2012).

Farber v. H & K Perforating QPI, LLC (M.D. Penn. 2023).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(b)(l) — 2 cases

Fetters v. First Hosp. Corp., 34 Pa. D. & C.4th 366 (1997).

Anders v. Graygo, 21 Pa. D. & C.4th 395 (1993).

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.