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

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8352 (2026)

 Existence of probable cause.

✓ 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

§ 8352.  Existence of probable cause.

A person who takes part in the procurement, initiation or continuation of civil proceedings against another has probable cause for doing so if he reasonably believes in the existence of the facts upon which the claim is based, and either:

(1)  reasonably believes that under those facts the claim may be valid under the existing or developing law;

(2)  believes to this effect in reliance upon the advice of counsel, sought in good faith and given after full disclosure of all relevant facts within his knowledge and information; or

(3)  believes as an attorney of record, in good faith that his procurement, initiation or continuation of a civil cause is not intended to merely harass or maliciously injure the opposite party.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Villani v. Seibert Appeal of: Seibert, 159 A.3d 478 (Pa. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Villani v. Seibert Appeal of: Seibert, 159 A.3d 478 (Pa. 2017). · cites it 10× “42 Pa.C.S. § 8352. The concern forwarded by Appellee herein implicates the first scenario, as Appellee offers that an attorney who seeks an “extension, modification or reversal of existing law” as ethically permitted under the Rules of Professional Conduct 2 might nonetheless be…”
Gentzler v. Atlee, 660 A.2d 1378 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). · cites it 6× “5 42 Pa.C.S. § 8352 (emphasis added). A party has probable cause to bring an action when he “reasonably believes” in the facts on which it is based and in the viability of the legal theory under which it is brought.”
McNeil v. Jordan, 894 A.2d 1260 (Pa. 2006). · cites it 2× “42 Pa.C.S. § 8352. Under the Commonwealth's fact-pleading regime, any complaint must state facts in which the complainant reasonably believes, and under which a good faith argument may reasonably be made that Pennsylvania law provides, or under developing law may provide, relief.”
Phelps, N. v. Caperoon, L., 190 A.3d 1230 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “" 15 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8352(2). RESDL does not. See 68 Pa.”
Thunberg v. Strause, 682 A.2d 295 (Pa. 1996). · cites it 2× “§ 8353 (damages for wrongful use of civil proceeding may include, but are not limited to, any specific pecuniary loss that has resulted from the proceeding and the expense that a party has reasonably incurred in defending against the proceeding).”
Schmidt v. Currie, 470 F. Supp. 2d 477 (E.D. Pa. 2005). · cites it 3× “42 Pa. Cons.Stat. Ann. § 8352. 1 The reasonableness of an attorney is assessed objectively.”
Keystone Freight Corp. v. Stricker, 31 A.3d 967 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011). · cites it 2× “42 Pa.C.S. § 8352. In order to prevail on a claim of wrongful use of civil proceedings, Keystone Freight must show that Appellees maliciously instituted proceedings against it, that Appellees lacked probable cause to institute the proceedings, and that the proceedings terminated…”
Greenberg, M. v. McGraw, N., 161 A.3d 976 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). “In Feierstein , this Court explained that in order to litigate a claim under the Dragonetti Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8352 et seg., or for common law abuse of process, "the aggrieved party would have to discuss, at the very least, the pleadings and allegations underlying the pri- or,…”
Hvizdak, R. v. Linn, D., 190 A.3d 1213 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). “doing so if he reasonably believes in the existence of the facts upon which the claim is based, and either: (1) reasonably believes that under those facts the claim may be valid under the existing or developing law; (2) believes to this effect in reliance upon the advice of…”
Orange Stones Co. v. City of Reading, 87 A.3d 1014 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014). “” Section 8352(3) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8352(3). An attorney who initiates a civil proceeding on behalf of his client[,] .”
J. Morley, Jr. v. L Farnese, Jr., K. Greenberg, 178 A.3d 910 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018). · cites it 2× “42 Pa. C.S. § 8352 (“A person who takes part in the procurement, initiation- or continuation of civil proceedings against, another has probable cause for doing so if he reasonably believes in the existence of the facts upon which the claim is based, and .”
Peoples Mortg. Co. v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n, 856 F. Supp. 910 (E.D. Pa. 1994). · cites it 2× “A defendant is liable for wrongful use of civil proceeding only if she brings a civil action without probable cause. 42 Pa.C.S. § 8351(a)(1); Restatement (Second) of Torts § 674(a).”
Show all 52 citing cases →
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8352(1) — 10 cases
Villani v. Seibert Appeal of: Seibert, 159 A.3d 478 (Pa. 2017). “42 Pa.C.S. § 8352. The concern forwarded by Appellee herein implicates the first scenario, as Appellee offers that an attorney who seeks an “extension, modification or reversal of existing law” as ethically permitted under the Rules of Professional Conduct 2 might nonetheless be…”
Gentzler v. Atlee, 660 A.2d 1378 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). “5 42 Pa.C.S. § 8352 (emphasis added). A party has probable cause to bring an action when he “reasonably believes” in the facts on which it is based and in the viability of the legal theory under which it is brought.”
Keystone Freight Corp. v. Stricker, 31 A.3d 967 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011). “42 Pa.C.S. § 8352. In order to prevail on a claim of wrongful use of civil proceedings, Keystone Freight must show that Appellees maliciously instituted proceedings against it, that Appellees lacked probable cause to institute the proceedings, and that the proceedings terminated…”
Berg v. Georgetown Builders, Inc., 822 A.2d 810 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003).
Rubin, B. v. Stewart, P. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8352(2) — 4 cases
Phelps, N. v. Caperoon, L., 190 A.3d 1230 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). “" 15 See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8352(2). RESDL does not. See 68 Pa.”
Villani v. Seibert Appeal of: Seibert, 159 A.3d 478 (Pa. 2017). “42 Pa.C.S. § 8352. The concern forwarded by Appellee herein implicates the first scenario, as Appellee offers that an attorney who seeks an “extension, modification or reversal of existing law” as ethically permitted under the Rules of Professional Conduct 2 might nonetheless be…”
Villani v. Seibert Appeal of: Seibert (Pa. 2017).
Rubin, B. v. Stewart, P. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8352(3) — 4 cases
Villani v. Seibert Appeal of: Seibert, 159 A.3d 478 (Pa. 2017). “42 Pa.C.S. § 8352. The concern forwarded by Appellee herein implicates the first scenario, as Appellee offers that an attorney who seeks an “extension, modification or reversal of existing law” as ethically permitted under the Rules of Professional Conduct 2 might nonetheless be…”
Orange Stones Co. v. City of Reading, 87 A.3d 1014 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014). “” Section 8352(3) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8352(3). An attorney who initiates a civil proceeding on behalf of his client[,] .”
Rubin, B. v. Stewart, P. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023).
Tupitza v. Martin, 14 Pa. D. & C.5th 416 (2010).
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.