Marshall Dennehey’s award-winning Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group–recognized by Law.com and The Legal Intelligencer as the Pennsylvania “Litigation Department of the Year” for Appellate Law in 2026, 2025, 2024 and 2016–is one of the largest and most accomplished appellate practice groups in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Firmwide, the group’s 17 lawyers have more than 300 years of combined experience handling post-trial motions and appeals. Dedicated to the craft of written and oral appellate advocacy, our appellate attorneys respond to clients’ post-trial needs and challenges throughout Pennsylvania and the six additional states where we maintain offices.
The group’s attorneys have represented parties in many high-profile civil matters, including litigation stemming from the Jerry Sandusky child abuse prosecution, the Market Street building collapse in Center City, Philadelphia that killed six people and injured more than a dozen others, the fatal shooting of employees at a Kraft Foods plant in Philadelphia, and numerous other cases that resulted in multimillion and billion dollar civil verdicts. In many of these high-exposure cases, our attorneys served as appellate counsel during trial to ensure that important legal issues had been properly raised and preserved for post-trial motions and appeals.
The practice is led by seasoned appellate practitioner John J. Hare who was co-awarded “Attorney of the Year” at the 2026 Pennsylvania Legal Awards. John has represented individuals, insurers and corporations in some of the most high-profile litigation in recent Pennsylvania history, including dozens of cases with verdicts and settlements in excess of $10 million. As litigation and amicus curiae counsel, John has represented a diverse clientele, including leading corporations and insurers, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, the Pennsylvania Defense Institute, the Pennsylvania Medical Society, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and academics interested in the outcome of appellate litigation.
The appellate team routinely engages in trial monitoring, which involves actively assisting trial teams during high exposure trials to ensure that important legal issues are developed, presented, and preserved for post-trial and appellate review if necessary. This assistance includes direct participation in trials by arguing motions, involvement in court conferences, and handling other “legal” matters that arise during trial. Trial monitoring also includes drafting trial motions and briefs, providing strategic legal research and analysis of complex and first-impression issues, and assisting trial counsel in developing effective trial strategies and tactics.
To enhance their skills and the relationship between the appellate courts and appellate practitioners, the attorneys in this group are active members of the Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Post-Trial and Appellate Practice Committee; Philadelphia Bar Association’s Appellate Courts Committee; Florida Bar Appellate Practice Section; The American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, and more.
Results
Superior Court of Pennsylvania Vacates $1.09 Billion Verdict, Orders New Trial Over Crashworthiness Jury Instructions
We convinced the Superior Court of Pennsylvania to vacate a $1.09 billion jury verdict and remand for a new trial. The court held that the jury had not been properly instructed on the elements of a crashworthiness claim under Pennsylvania law. The court's ruling received press coverage in both The Legal Intelligencer and The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Trial Court’s Denial of Motions Reversed Before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
We convinced the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania to reverse the trial court’s denial of motions for post-trial relief and to direct entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of our client. The plaintiff was injured while standing unsupported on a moving bus. He lost his balance when the bus accelerated away from a bus stop, grabbed an overhead bar to keep from falling, and injured his arm. The video showed that only the plaintiff lost his balance when the bus started moving. At trial, our client moved for nonsuit and directed verdict, arguing the evidence was insufficient to overcome the jerk-and-jolt doctrine that applies when a passenger is injured on a moving bus. To merit the submission of a jerk-and-jolt case to the jury, a plaintiff must establish a sudden stop or jerk so unusual and extraordinary as to be beyond a passenger’s reasonable anticipation. The Honorable James Crumlish denied the motions for nonsuit and directed verdict and also denied our client’s motions for post-trial relief. Judge Crumlish determined the video evidence presented a jury question under the jerk-and-jolt doctrine and mirrored the plaintiff’s counsel’s characterization of the video evidence in doing so. The Commonwealth Court disagreed. After independently reviewing the video evidence, the Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court and granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict to our client. In doing so, it pointed out that various observations of the trial court “were not supported by the video or testimony.”
Thought Leadership
Defense Digest
Forum Non Conveniens: It Really Has Little To Do With Convenience
June 30, 2026
Key Points: In evaluating a challenge for forum non conveniens, deference must be given to plaintiff’s choice of forum. “Congested centers of litigation” alone are not a reason to transfer a case to another forum. When a defendant is incorporated in the chosen forum, that forum has a legitimate interest in adjudicating disputes involving its corporate entities. Codified at 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322(e), the Pennsylvania doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to stay or dismiss a matter in whole or in part where it “finds that in the interest of substantial justice the matter should be heard in another forum.” In evaluating a challenge for forum non conveniens, deference must be given to plaintiff’s choice forum, “but somewhat to a lesser degree when plaintiff’s residence and place of injury are located somewhere else.” See McConnell v. B. Braun Medical, Inc., 221 A.3d 221, 227-228 (Pa. Super. 2019). The Pennsylvania Superior Court’s March 25, 2026, opinion in Duxbury v. Reconstructive Orthopedic Associates II, P.C. d/b/a/ The Rothman Institute of New Jersey, et al., 354 A.3d 551 (Pa. Super. 2026) illustrates just how the application of forum non conveniens does not necessarily lead to the forum that the facts and everyday considerations may suggest is “convenient.” The Duxburys filed their medical negligence case in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, against Reconstructive Orthopedic Associates II, P.C. (ROA), Atlantic Surgery Care (ASC), and Dr. Alyson Axelrod, who was employed by ROA and The Rothman Institute of New Jersey (RINJ). Notably, the Duxburys are New Jersey residents and the medical care giving rise to their claim was rendered at locations in New Jersey. ROA is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in Philadelphia. ROA also maintained its principal place of business in Philadelphia, and Dr. Axelrod was licensed to practice medicine in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The medical defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. § 5322(e) and forum non conveniens. The trial court permitted discovery as to the forum issue. Finding “weighty reasons” in support of dismissal, the trial court granted the motion and directed the Duxburys to refile their claim in New Jersey. The trial court found the following factors as “weighty reasons” justifying dismissal: (1) the injuries were sustained in New Jersey; (2) treatment was rendered in New Jersey; (3) relevant medical providers were residents of New Jersey; (4) defendants’ witnesses resided in New Jersey, with the exception of one; and (5) the relevant medical records were located in New Jersey. On appeal, the Duxburys argued that the trial court erred in its application of existing precedent regarding forum non conveniens, and that a consideration of the facts under a correct application of the law did not support transfer of the action to New Jersey. The Superior Court agreed, reasoning that the trial court had not conducted the full analysis set forth in McConnell, in finding “weighty reasons” alone enough to justify its decision to dismiss the plaintiff’s action with directions to refile it in New Jersey. McConnell explains that the determination of “weighty reasons” overcomes the deference afforded to a plaintiff’s choice of forum. To make this determination the trial court must examine both the private and public interest factors involved in the case. McConnell, 221 A.3d at 227-228. The “private factors” include: The relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance for unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of the premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. The public factors to be considered include: Administrative difficulties follow for courts when litigation is piled up in congested centers instead of being handled at its origin. Jury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the litigation. There is an appropriateness, too, in having the trial … in a forum that is at home with the state law that must govern the case, rather than having a court in some other forum untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself. The Superior Court reiterated that it is the burden of the moving party (i.e. the appellees/medical defendants) to establish that Pennsylvania is a less convenient forum than another available forum. The appellate court found that the trial court committed an error of law in failing to consider the circumstances linking the case to Pennsylvania as well, and to determine whether Pennsylvania was an inconvenient forum, not simply that New Jersey was more convenient for appellees. Regarding the private factors, the Superior Court noted that Dr. Axelrod’s proximity to Philadelphia, and concerns about her commute into town were not grounds to dismiss for inconvenience. The appellate court also found that the trial court gave no consideration to whether any witness would not or could not travel to Pennsylvania. Additionally, the court reasoned that the sources of proof—the medical records—while located in New Jersey, likely could just as easily be produced in Pennsylvania. Addressing the medical defendants’ principal place of business in Philadelphia as an “address,” the court “recognized that that for foreign defendants with corporate offices in Pennsylvania,” in terms of convenience for those defendants, that forum state seems as good as any other. McConnell, 221 A.3d at 230; see also Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 905 A.2d 544, 551 (Pa. Super. 2006). Though the trial court failed to consider any public factors, the Superior Court did first find error in the trial court’s focus on Philadelphia as opposed to the state of Pennsylvania. The court then determined that “congested centers of litigation” alone are not a reason to transfer a case to another forum. Second, the court emphasized that “when a defendant is incorporated in the chosen forum, that forum has a legitimate interest in adjudicating disputes involving its corporate entitles.” Finally, the Superior Court found that the medical defendants provided medical care in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, and Dr. Axelrod was licensed to provide medical care in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. As to the question of what state’s law would apply, the parties agreed that New Jersey law would, and there was no showing that the Philadelphia trial judge would be incapable of applying it. The Superior Court concluded that the medical defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence of public factors to support overriding the Duxbury’s choice of forum. What litigants can learn from the Duxbury opinion is that “convenience” in considering a plaintiff’s choice of forum for litigation is not necessarily a matter of ease, little trouble, or less effort. Melissa works in our Pittsburgh, PA office. She can be reached at (412) 803-3477 or MDCochran@mdwcg.com.
New York Law Journal
New York Appellate Court Clears Path for Disclosure of Third‑Party Litigation Funding in Personal Injury Lawsuits
January 7, 2026
For the first time, a New York appellate court has held that the defendants in a personal injury lawsuit are entitled to third-party litigation funding discovery. In Lituma v. Liberty Coca-Cola Beverages LLC, 243 AD3d 504 (1st Dept. 2025), the Appellate Division, First Department, established critical legal precedent in allowing this discovery that the defense bar has been seeking for years.
