BRATIC v. Rubendall
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
1Dissent
DISSENTING OPINION BY
GANTMAN, J.:
I respectfully disagree with the majority’s disposition because I believe it creates an excessively high burden for defendants seeking to obtain a transfer on forum non conveniens grounds. The majority’s decision to discount allegations of hardship when alleged by (1) employee-witnesses of a corporate defendant and (2) defense witnesses who are engaged in “client-based” professions has the effect of making a forum non conveniens transfer practically unattainable in many cases. Based on my *504reading of this Court’s post-Cheeseman decisions, I conclude Appellees…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Zappala v. Brandolini Property Management, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
- Wood v. EI Du Pont De Nemours and Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Com. v. OrtizSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
- Hoose v. Jefferson Home Health Care, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.