Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice

< Back to Practices

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 nine 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 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.

Hare_John
John J. Hare, Chair
Craig Hudson
Craig S. Hudson,
Additional contact

Appellate attorneys prevail in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice

The decision, which reversed the trial court and Superior Court, reinstated a jury verdict in favor of our clients. Following a defense verdict, the trial court awarded a new trial based on a question posed by defense counsel, who was not a Marshall Dennehey attorney. The Superior Court affirmed the award of a new trial, but the Supreme Court reversed and reinstated the defense verdict on the basis that defense counsel’s question was neither improper nor prejudicial.

Read More

Appellate success in wrongful death product liability action.

Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice
Product Liability

Our attorneys succeeded in obtaining an affirmance in the Fifth District Court of Appeal of a final dismissal order of a wrongful death product liability action. The decedent’s estate filed the lawsuit two years after the statute of limitations expired. The estate argued the statute was tolled for a variety of reasons. The trial court dismissed the case, with prejudice, after giving the Estate five attempts to amend. The Fifth District affirmed the dismissal and dispensed with oral argument that same day. 

Read More

Court affirms dismissal of real estate agent and his broker.

Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice
Real Estate E&O Liability

Our attorneys succeeded in obtaining an affirmance by the Fourth District Court of Appeal. The Fourth District affirmed the dismissal, with prejudice, of our clients, a listing real estate agent and his broker, in an alleged negligence and fraud case. The court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing their pleadings due to their attorney’s conduct. The court detailed how the plaintiff’s attorney dropped the ball in litigating the case in a separate opinion reversing the plaintiffs’ attorney’s contempt conviction.

Read More

Denial of nationwide and Pennsylvania-wide class certification affirmed.

Product Liability
Class Action Litigation
Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice

Our attorneys prevailed on an appeal to the Third Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ request for class certification in a product liability and warranty action. The named plaintiffs are several property owners and communities of common ownership who allege they have yellow-jacketed, corrugated stainless steel tubing (CSST) transporting natural gas through their structures. The flexible, yellow CSST is the modern heir to the black iron pipe formerly universal in the building industry.

Read More

Dismissal of consumer fraud class action.

Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice
Commercial Litigation

Our clients specialize in identifying and reclaiming lost property for consumers who are unaware that such lost property exists. The plaintiff brought claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) and for fraudulent inducement, arguing that the business model was deceptive because consumers could recover their own property without paying for the ease and convenience of having the defendant business work on their behalf.

Read More