Legal Opinion · Dissent

BRATIC v. Rubendall

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 23, 2012No. 2413 EDA 2009Published

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

  1. Cheeseman v. Lethal Exterminator, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  2. Zappala v. Brandolini Property Management, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. Wood v. EI Du Pont De Nemours and Co.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  4. Com. v. OrtizSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  5. Hoose v. Jefferson Home Health Care, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API