Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes
42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343 (2026)
Burden of proof.
✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 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. Scranton Times, 129 A.3d 404 (Pa. 2015).
T. Joseph v. Scranton Times, 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.”
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.”
Constantakis, K. v. Bryan Advisory, 275 A.3d 998, 2022 PA Super 81 (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…”
Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps, 475 U.S. 767 (1986). “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). “00 in compensation for damage to their sexual relationship was capable of a defamatory meaning.”
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.”
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.”
Meyers, M. v. Certifiied Guar. Co., 221 A.3d 662, 2019 PA Super 316 (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…”
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).”
Rockwell v. Allegheny Health, 19 F. Supp. 2d 401 (E.D. Pa. 1998). “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). “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). “13 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8343(a)(7); Corabi, supra, 441 Pa.”
42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(1): 1 case
Dusman, C. v. Padasak, J., Jr., No. 1746 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sept. 24, 2018).
42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(2): 1 case
Williams v. Hill, 66 Pa. D. & C.4th 43 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. 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. Scranton Times, 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. v. Scranton Times, 124 A.3d 1229 (Pa. 2015).
Meyers, M. v. Certifiied Guar. Co., 221 A.3d 662, 2019 PA Super 316 (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 (3d Cir. 1981).
Renita Hill v. William Cosby, Jr., 665 F. App'x 169 (3d 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 (3d Cir. 1997).
Strange v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 867 F. Supp. 1209 (E.D. Pa. 1994).
Dusman, C. v. Padasak, J., Jr., No. 1746 MDA 2017 (Pa. Super. Ct. Sept. 24, 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 (3d Cir. 2016).
Tricome v. Welch, 17 Pa. D. & C.5th 83 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. 2010).
Jeremiah Kane v. Chester Cnty., 811 F. App'x 65 (3d Cir. 2020).
Joseph v. Scranton Times, 23 Pa. D. & C.5th 129 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. 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., No. 40 EAP 2019 (Pa. Nov. 17, 2021).
Fox v. Smith, Appeal of: Pascale & Baum, No. 41 EAP 2019 (Pa. Nov. 17, 2021).
Fox v. Smith, Appeal of: Luongo, E., No. 42 EAP 2019 (Pa. Nov. 17, 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).”
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.”
Beverly Enter., Inc. v. Rosemary Trump Serv. Employees Int'l Union Local 585, 182 F.3d 183 (3d 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 (3d 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 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. 2009).
42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(b): 37 cases
T. Joseph v. Scranton Times, 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.”
Constantakis, K. v. Bryan Advisory, 275 A.3d 998, 2022 PA Super 81 (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, 2024 PA Super 118 (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.”
Constantakis, K. v. Bryan Advisory, 275 A.3d 998, 2022 PA Super 81 (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…”
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
Constantakis, K. v. Bryan Advisory, 275 A.3d 998, 2022 PA Super 81 (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…”
Martin v. Finley, 349 F. Supp. 3d 391 (M.D. Pa. 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 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. 2012).
Farber v. H & K Perforating QPI, LLC, No. 3:21-cv-01723 (M.D. Pa. May 10, 2023).
42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8343(b)(l): 2 cases
Fetters v. First Hosp. Corp., 34 Pa. D. & C.4th 366 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. 1997).
Anders v. Graygo, 21 Pa. D. & C.4th 395 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. 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.