A.2d 1014 (1977), the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiff had not produced sufficient evidence to withstand a motion for directed verdict as to her breach of express warranty claim, “particularly in light of the requirement that the jury find the existence of the warranty by clear and convincing evidence.” ' Id. at 453, 379 A.2d 1014 (emphasis added). See also Sealover v. Carey Canada, 793 F.Supp. 569, 570-71 (M.D.Pa.1992) (directing entry of summary judgment in defendants’ favor on the punitive damage claims because the plaintiff did not show by a preponderance of evidence [Pennsylvania’s standard of proof for entitlement to punitive damages] that the defendant had actual knowledge of the hazard); School Dist. v. United States Gypsum Co., 750 S.W.2d 442, 445-46 (Mo.Ct.App.1988) (<HOLDING>). Whether there is legally sufficient evidence
holding what section 76872 requires is that a plaintiff who has pleaded punitive damages must offer a reasonable evidentiary basis for punitive damages and obtain an order authorizing the maintenance of the punitive damage claim as a predicate to conducting discovery of a defendants financial worth holding that in order to submit a claim for punitive damages to a jury in a product liability action a plaintiff is required to produce evidence of actual knowledge holding without discussion of the punitive damages issue that judgment for embezzlement which included actual and punitive damages was nondischargeable holding that a plaintiff can seek statutory damages even in the absence of actual damages holding that a 32 to 1 ratio of compensation to actual damages is not punitive