Marshall Dennehey’s Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group is one of the largest and most accomplished appellate practice groups in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Firmwide, the group’s 15 lawyers have more than 120 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 five additional states where we maintain offices.
We have represented parties in 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 seven-figure, eight-figure, and nine-figure 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 group, which was selected as the “Litigation Department of the Year” for Appellate Law by The Legal Intelligencer in 2025, 2024 and 2016, is led by seasoned appellate practitioner John J. Hare. 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 so-called 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
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.
Pennsylvania Bar Association Quarterly
What Lawyers Can Do to Protect and Promote Judicial Independence
January 1, 2026
Lawyers have a special obligation and opportunity to safeguard judicial independence through advocacy and by avoiding and condemning attacks on courts and jurists.
