Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8354 (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

§ 8354. Burden of proof.

In an action brought pursuant to this subchapter the plaintiff has the burden of proving, when the issue is properly raised, that:

(1) The defendant has procured, initiated or continued the civil proceedings against him.

(2) The proceedings were terminated in his favor.

(3) The defendant did not have probable cause for his action.

(4) The primary purpose for which the proceedings were brought was not that of securing the proper discovery, joinder of parties or adjudication of the claim on which the proceedings were based.

(5) The plaintiff has suffered damages as set forth in section 8353 (relating to damages).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 28 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: McNeil v. Jordan, 894 A.2d 1260 (Pa. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

McNeil v. Jordan, 894 A.2d 1260 (Pa. 2006). · cites it 2× “42 Pa.C.S. § 8354; cf. McGee v. Feege, 517 Pa.”

Gentzler v. Atlee, 660 A.2d 1378 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). · cites it 3× “3 42 Pa.C.S. § 8354; Mi-Lor, Inc. v. DiPentino, 439 Pa.”

Rowe v. Conners (In Re Rowe), 110 B.R. 712 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1990). · cites it 2× “Also, the burden of proving all elements of the cause of action, in the conjunctive, is thusly squarely placed upon the claimant in 42 Pa.C.S. § 8354: § 8354. Burden of proof In an action brought pursuant to this subchapter the plaintiff has the burden of proving, when the issue…”

Vivian, J. v. St. Luke's Hosp., 318 A.3d 890 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024). · cites it 2× “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8354(3) (lack of probable cause for action is element of Dragonetti Act claim); Pa.”

Miller v. St. Luke's Univ. Health Network, 142 A.3d 884 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2016). “42 Pa.C.S. § 8354.... Thus, whether civil proceedings have been tortiously used hinges on an aggrieved party's *896 ability to demonstrate that the suitor instituted proceedings without probable cause to do so.”

Keystone Freight Corp. v. Stricker, 31 A.3d 967 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011). “42 Pa.C.S. § 8354(4). In its memorandum opinion granting Appellees’ motion for summary judgment, the trial court stated: Keystone Freight’s answer to the motion for summary judgment does not proffer any evidence which justifies a claim for lack of probable cause.”

Perelman, J. v. Perelman, R., 125 A.3d 1259 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015). “42 Pa.C.S. § 8354. 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…”

Ludmer v. Nernberg, 640 A.2d 939 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1994). “42 Pa.C.S. § 8354. The trial court analyzed this issue as follows: The jury found that Nemberg did not have probable cause to initiate a suit against Ludmer solely for the purpose of collecting a fee which [Nernberg] claimed was due him as a result of a third party action in…”

J. Morley, Jr. v. L Farnese, Jr., K. Greenberg, 178 A.3d 910 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2018). “A plaintiff asserting a claim for wrongful use of civil proceedings; must prove not only that the underlying proceeding terminated in his favor, but that the defendant acted without probable cause in instituting or continuing to litigate that proceeding against him.”

Morris v. DiPaolo, 930 A.2d 500 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007). “42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 8354. Therefore, in order to justify the grant of summary judgment in his favor, a plaintiff must establish that there is no dispute of material fact with respect to each element.”

Cameron v. Graphic Mgmt. Assocs., Inc., 817 F. Supp. 19 (E.D. Pa. 1992). “A review of GMA’s briefs and pleadings suggests that its claim, although couched in terms of abuse of process, actually asserts facts that pertain to a wrongful use of civil proceedings claim. GMA states that in “filing this lawsuit, Cameron acted with ill will and a malicious…”

City of Greensburg v. Wisneski, 75 F. Supp. 3d 688 (W.D. Pa. 2015). “2010); see 42 Pa. Cons.Stat. § 8354. Probable cause is defined by statute.”

Show all 28 citing cases →

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8354(1) — 1 case

Gentzler v. Atlee, 660 A.2d 1378 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). “3 42 Pa.C.S. § 8354; Mi-Lor, Inc. v. DiPentino, 439 Pa.”

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8354(3) — 2 cases

Vivian, J. v. St. Luke's Hosp., 318 A.3d 890 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2024). “See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8354(3) (lack of probable cause for action is element of Dragonetti Act claim); Pa.”

Am. Int'l Airways, Inc. v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., 816 F. Supp. 1058 (E.D. Pa. 1993).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8354(4) — 3 cases

Rowe v. Conners (In Re Rowe), 110 B.R. 712 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1990). “Also, the burden of proving all elements of the cause of action, in the conjunctive, is thusly squarely placed upon the claimant in 42 Pa.C.S. § 8354: § 8354. Burden of proof In an action brought pursuant to this subchapter the plaintiff has the burden of proving, when the issue…”

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8354(5) — 1 case

Gentzler v. Atlee, 660 A.2d 1378 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995). “3 42 Pa.C.S. § 8354; Mi-Lor, Inc. v. DiPentino, 439 Pa.”

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.