John J. Hare: Lawyer with Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, P.C.

John J. Hare

John Hare is a shareholder and Chair of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin's Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group. He is a highly-experienced appellate attorney who has litigated more than 300 appeals in state and federal appellate courts.
Shareholder; Chair, Appellate Advocacy and Post Trial Practice
Philadelphia,  PA  U.S.A.
Phone(215) 575-2609

Peer Rating
 5.0/5.0
AV® Preeminent

Client Rating

Featured AV Peer Review Rated Lawyer IconFeatured AV Peer Review Rated Lawyer Icon
Printer Friendly VersionEmail this PageDownload to My Outlook ContactsAdd lawyer to My FavoritesCompare this lawyer to other lawyers in your favorites

Experience & Credentials Ratings & Reviews
 

Practice Areas

  • Appellate Litigation
  • Post-Trial Litigation
 
University Indiana University of Pennsylvania, B.A., magna cum laude, 1990; University of California, M.A., Legal History, 1998; Princeton University, Completed Ph.D. Coursework, Legal History, 1999
 
Law SchoolDuquesne University School of Law, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, J.D., 1993 Duquesne Law Review, Senior Editor
 
Admitted1994, Pennsylvania; U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit; U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania; U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania; U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania
 
Memberships 

Associations & Memberships

Bar Association for the Third Federal Circuit

•Pennsylvania Bar Association

•Philadelphia Bar Association

 
Biography

John is an experienced appellate attorney who serves as chair of the firm's Appellate Advocacy and Post-Trial Practice Group. He has litigated more than 300 appeals in state and federal appellate courts. His diverse practice includes cases involving professional malpractice, civil rights claims, product liability, toxic torts, construction accidents, employment claims and premises liability. In addition to litigating cases in the appellate courts, he is actively engaged in developing and implementing trial and appellate strategy, prosecuting and defending pre-trial, trial and post-trial motions, and acting as appellate counsel on trial teams in high-exposure cases. John also frequently speaks on appellate topics and has submitted amicus curiae briefs to appellate courts on behalf of various organizations.

Along with former Pennsylvania Superior Court Judge Patrick Tamilia, John was commissioned by the Superior Court in 1995 to draft a comprehensive history of the Court to commemorate its Centennial Anniversary. The book, entitled Keystone of Justice: The Pennsylvania Superior Court, 1895-1995, was published by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 2000 and is one of the nation's leading studies of a state appellate court. John also formerly served on the Board of Governors of the Bar Association of the Third Federal Circuit.

Every year since 2008, John has been recognized by Law & Politics/Philadelphia Magazine as a Pennsylvania Super Lawyer in the area of appellate practice, a distinction applied to five percent of Pennsylvania attorneys based upon a peer selection and evaluation process. John also has an AV Preeminent (5.0/5.0) rating by Lexis Nexis Martindale-Hubbell, the highest possible rating for professional competence.

John is regularly called upon by the media to provide insight and commentary on cases in which he is involved, as well as other significant matters in both the state and federal appeals courts. Over the course of the past year, he's been quoted or provided comment in the following articles:





Attorneys Shocked by Senate Proposal to Slash Judiciary, The Legal Intelligencer (June 5, 2014)

PA. Supreme Court Reaffirms Statutory Employer Doctrine, The Legal Intelligencer, March 31, 2014

Pa. Appeals Court Won't Reconsider Asbestos Suits' Transfer, Law360, March 31, 2014

Pa. High Court Keeps Tort Immunity For General Contractors, Law360, March 27, 2014

Tardy Statement of Errors Causes Waiver of Appeal, The Legal Intelligencer March 17, 2014

Pa. Court Says Amusement Park Death Suit Belongs in NJ, Law360 March 12, 2014

Are Appeals Courts Showing More Mercy for Procedural Errors, The Legal Intelligencer, February 10, 2014

Lawyers Frustrated by Unreported Superior Court Cases, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, February 4, 2014

Pa. Pharma Ruling Opens New Front in Mass Tort Battles, Law360, January 28, 2014

Eighteen Asbestos Cases Set to Move Out of Philadelphia, The Legal Intelligencer, January 24, 2014

Gantman Aims to Make Superior Court More Accessible as PJ, Pennsylvania Law Weekly, January 14, 2014

Potential Statutory Employer Jury Question Argued in High Court, The Legal Intelligencer, November 26, 2013

Contractor Asks Pa. High Court to Save Injury-Suit Immunity, Law360, November 19, 2013

Failure to Report -Phantom' Vehicle Threatens Coverage, The Legal Intelligencer, November 4, 2013

Pa. Superior Court Throws Out $14.5 Million Asbestos Verdict, The Legal Intelligencer, September 9, 2013

Pa. Court Reverses $14.5 Million Asbestos Verdict; Rejects -Each and Every' Exposure Causation Theory, Harris Martin, September 6, 2013

Bender Has 'Institutional Sense' for Superior Ct. Role, The Legal Intelligencer, August 20, 2013

Boat Co. Escapes Liability for Acquired Assets in CO Suit, Law360, July 9, 2013

Lawyers Say Stevens Brings Work Ethic to Pa. High Court, The Legal Intelligencer, July 2, 2013

School Has No Constitutional Duty to Protect, Panel Rules, The Legal Intelligencer, June 6, 2013

House Takes Up Asbestos Trust Legislation, The Legal Intelligencer, April 9, 2013

Date Shows Orie Melvin's Absence Leads to More 3-3 Splits, The Legal Intelligencer, January 29, 2013

No Physician Duty to Third Parties in Prison Guard Case, The Legal Intelligencer, January 22, 2013

Significant Representative Matters

•By a vote of 7-0, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court and the trial court and ruled that John's client, a general contractor, was immune from suit under Pennsylvania's statutory employer doctrine. The ruling nullified a large verdict against the general contractor. Twenty-one construction and insurance industry groups joined together as amici to support John's appeal to the Supreme Court. Patton v. Worthington Associates, 2014 Pa. LEXIS 788 (March 26, 2014).

•The Pennsylvania Superior Court dismissed a highly-publicized death case filed against John's client in Pennsylvania based upon the doctrine of forum non conveniens under Pennsylvania's long-arm statute, 42 Pa.C.S. 5322(e). Jones v. Morey's Pier Inc., No. 2990 EDA 2012 (March 10, 2014)

•The Pennsylvania Superior Court ordered the transfer of 18 asbestos cases out of Philadelphia to a more appropriate venue based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Stettler v. Allied Signal et al., 795 EDA 2012 (Pa. Super., January 21, 2014)

•In its second ruling in the case in two years, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Superior Court's reversal of a trial court finding that an insurer was not prejudiced by the insured's failure to report a phantom vehicle within the 30-day time limit set forth in the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa.C.S.A. 1702. The Supreme Court held that an insured reasonably can be expected to alert the insurer of the phantom vehicle within a month's time and, while an insurer cannot deny coverage absent prejudice cause by late notice, showing such prejudice does not require proof of what the insurer would have found had timely notice been provided. Vanderhoff v. Harleysville Insurance Co., 2013 Pa. Lexis 2581 (Pa. 2013).

•The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated a $14.5 million verdict based on erroneous evidentiary rulings by the trial court and remanded for a new trial. Nelson v. Airco Welders' Supply et al., Nos. 865, 866, 867, and 889 EDA 2011 (Pa. Super. 2013).

•The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc and deciding an issue of first impression, held that a school district and its assistant principal were properly granted summary judgment because students' allegations of bullying against other students did not establish a special relationship or state-created danger that must exist before a constitutional duty to protect arose under Fourteenth Amendment. Morrow v. Balaski, 719 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2013).

•The Third Circuit Court of Appeals held that, even if medical treatment provided to a prisoner constitutes medical malpractice, it does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution unless it results from deliberate indifference to the prisoner's rights. Positano v. Wetzel, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14020 (3d Cir. 2013).

•The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, sitting en banc and deciding an issue of first impression, held that police pursuing a fleeing driver owe no duty of care to passengers in the car being pursued whose existence, or whose connection to the driver and the conduct for which he was being pursued, was unknown to the police. Sellers v. Twp. of Abington, 67 A.3d 863 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).

•In a case in which John filed an amicus curiae brief, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Pennsylvania Superior Court and held that a physician has no duty to warn and advise third-party non-patients of a patient's communicable disease. Seebold v. Prison Health Servs., Inc., 57 A.3d 1232 (Pa. 2013).

•The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed a trial court's transfer of venue under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, the first such decision by a Pennsylvania appellate court in nine years. Stoner v. Penn Kleen, 2012 Pa. Super. 218, 2012 Pa.Super. LEXIS 2932 (Pa. Super. 2012).

•In a case of first impression, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a putative class action against John's client, a national manufacturer of automobile anti-theft systems, and held that the client was not liable under the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, which permits a broad array of damages for violations of any federal or state consumer protection law, because its warranty did not violate any clearly established right under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. McGarvey v. Penske Auto Group, Inc., et al., 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 13450 (July 2, 2012).

•In the first Pennsylvania decision addressing the recoverability of attorneys' fees on a jury's award of future medical expenses under the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act, the Court held that such fees are paid out of, not in addition to, the award of future medical expenses, after reduction to present value. This ruling substantially reduced the value of a claim against John's client. Sayler v. Skutches, 2012 PA Super 23, 2012 Pa. Super. LEXIS 25 (Pa. Super., February 6, 2012).

•The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court vacated a large judgment against John's client, a township, and remanded for the entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict, on the basis that the trial evidence failed to demonstrate that the township was responsible for the decedent's death. Rahman v. Falls Township, 2012 Pa. Commw. Unpub. LEXIS 126 (Pa.Cmwlth., January 6, 2012).

•The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and awarded a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, vacating a large verdict against John's client, a mutual insurance company, on the basis that the insurer's conduct in handling a fire damage claim did not constitute bad faith as a matter of law. Edkin v. Brethren Mutual Insurance Co., 1331 MDA 2009 (Pa. Super., February 4, 2011).

•The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated an adverse jury verdict and remanded for a new trial in favor of John's client, one of the world's leading construction firms, in its claim for contractual indemnity. Skanska USA Buildings, Inc. v. Gory Mechanical Contractors, 345 EDA 2010 (Pa. Super., January 19, 2011).

•In a decision reconciling two conflicting lines of cases, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court ruling that John's client, an insurer, had a duty to defend a lawsuit claiming that the intoxicated insured assaulted and attempted to kill the plaintiff before taking his own life. The central issue in the case was whether and to what extent allegations of intoxication can convert otherwise intentional conduct into an accident for purposes of securing insurance coverage. Addressing tension in the existing case law, the Court reasoned in its published decision that Pennsylvania public policy forbids the extension of insurance coverage to obviously intentional conduct and that allegations of intoxication can create a duty to defend only when the allegations indicate that the insured was so intoxicated that he lacked conscious awareness of his actions or lacked the ability to form intent. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co v. The Estate of Thomas Mehlman, 589 F.3d 105 (3d Cir., 2009).

•The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court and upheld the dismissal of all claims against John's client, a law firm, on the basis that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations and the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Seawright v. Greenberg, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9248 (3d Cir. 2007).

•The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded for the re-entry of judgment in favor of John's client, a nonprofit corporation that had entered into an agreement to buy real estate, on the basis that the trial court had erroneously stricken the judgment. Crystal Lake Camps v. Alford, 923 A.2d 482 (Pa. Super. 2007).



The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court and upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff's claims against John's clients, attorneys and their law firm, on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to prove the necessary element of causation. My Le Duong v. Nationwide Ins. Co., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 27617 (3d Cir. 2006).

•The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated a large verdict against John's client and remanded for a new trial on the basis that the jury should have been allowed to consider whether the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. Urbach v. Kentile, Inc., et al., 915 A.2d 159 (Pa. Super. 2006), appeal denied, 2007 Pa. LEXIS 1351 (Pa. 2007).

•In the first comprehensive appellate decision interpreting Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1042.3-1042.6, Pennsylvania's tort reform measure intended to increase the threshold of merit for professional liability actions, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded for the entry of judgment as a matter of law in favor of John's client, a physician, based upon the plaintiff's failure to file a certificate of merit in support of his medical malpractice claim. O'Hara v. Randall, 879 A.2d 240 (Pa. Super. 2005).

•The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court, which entered judgment for John's client, that the City of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Phillies owed no duty to a spectator at a baseball game who was partially blinded when hit by a foul ball. Pakett v. The City of Philadelphia et al, 871 A.2d 304 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).

•The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court and held that the plaintiff was not entitled to retry her claims against John's client, a hospital. Stalsitz v. Allentown Hospital, 814 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2004).

•The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court and dismissed the plaintiff's civil rights claims on the basis that John's clients, county officials, were entitled to absolute immunity from liability for actions taken in their official capacities. Laverdure v. County of Montgomery, 324 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2003).

•The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court and held that the plaintiff was not entitled to retry her claims against John's client, a hospital. Stalsitz v. Allentown Hospital, 814 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2004).

•The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court and dismissed the plaintiff's civil rights claims on the basis that John's clients, county officials, were entitled to absolute immunity from liability for actions taken in their official capacities. Laverdure v. County of Montgomery, 324 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2003).

•The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the judgment of the federal district court and ruled that an ordinance passed by John's client, a Pennsylvania municipality, did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. Philadelphia Owners Association v. City of Philadelphia et al, 57 Fed. Appx. 961 (3d Cir. 2003).

•The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed two lower courts and awarded a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, erasing a substantial judgment against John's client, a professional corporation, on the basis that the plaintiff's res ipsa loquitur theory of liability was invalid as a matter of law. Toogood v. Rogal, 824 A.2d 1140 (Pa. 2003).

•In the first appellate decision interpreting and applying Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1006(a.1), Pennsylvania's tort reform measure involving venue, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court and held that the plaintiff's medical malpractice action against John's client, a physician, must be transferred out of Philadelphia County. Connor v. Crozer Keystone Health Sys., 832 A.2d 1112 (Pa. Super. 2003).

•The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the judgment of the federal district court and upheld the dismissal of the plaintiff's product liability claims against John's client, a manufacturer of scaffolding equipment, after a jury found that the manufacturer was not responsible for the construction accident that injured the plaintiff. Johnson v. Vanguard Manufacturing, 34 Fed. Appx. 858 (3d Cir. 2002).

•The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the ruling of the trial court and awarded a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, erasing a substantial judgment against John's client, a hospital, on the basis that, although the plaintiff had adduced some evidence to support her claims, the evidence was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence. Van Zandt v. Holy Redeemer Hospital, 806 A.2d 809 (Pa. 2002).

Published Works

•Dive into PSU Sanctions Shows Breadth of Judicial Discretion, PA Law Weekly, April 28, 2014

•Pa. Court Says Amusement Park Death Suit Belongs in NJ, Law360 (March 12, 2014)

•Protecting Their Own; The Power Of Administrative Agencies To Enforce Regulations Through Litigation, Defense Digest, May, 2003

•The Legal Doctrines Of Waiver And Estoppel May Not Be Used To Expand The Scope Of An Insurance Policy To Cover Excluded Risks, Defense Digest, September, 2002

•Defining 'Beneficiary' In A Wrongful Death Action Under The Pennsylvania Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association Act, Defense Digest, August, 2001

•Pennsylvania Appellate News, Defense Digest, 2001-2008

Keystone of Justice: A History of the Pennsylvania Superior Court; 1895-1995, co-author with Hon. P. Tamilia, Superior Court of Pa., Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, January 2000

•Note, Freedom of the Press and the Right to a Fair Trial in Pennsylvania, 30 Duq.L.Rev. 760, 1992

Past Employment Positions

•Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Hon. Patrick R. Tamilia, Law Clerk, 1994 -1997

•U.S. Marines, 1986 - 1990

Honors & Awards

•Pennsylvania Super Lawyer, 2008-2014

•AV Preeminent by LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell

 
Reported CasesToogood v. Rogal , 824 A.2d 1140 (Pa. 2003); Philadelphia Owners Association v. City of Philadelphia et al , 57 Fed. Appx. 961 (3d Cir. 2003); Laverdure v. County of Montgomery , 324 F.3d 123 (3d Cir. 2003); Johnson v. Vanguard Manufacturing , 34 Fed. Appx. 858 (3d Cir. 2002); O'Hara v. Randall , 879 A.2d 240 (Pa. Super. 2005); Connor v. Crozer Keystone Health Sys. , 832 A.2d 1112 (Pa. Super. 2003); Stalsitz v. Allentown Hospital , 814 A.2d 766 (Pa. Super. 2004); Van Zandt v. Holy Redeemer Hospital , 806 A.2d 809 (Pa. 2002); Pakett v. The City of Philadelphia et al , 871 A.2d 304 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005); Seawright v. Greenberg , 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 9248 (3d Cir. 2007); Crystal Lake Camps v. Alford , 2007 PA Super 119 (Pa. Super. 2007); My Le Duong v. Nationwide Ins. Co. , 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 27617 (3d Cir. 2006)
 
ISLN911268797
 


View Ratings & Reviews
Profile Visibility
#1,792 in weekly profile views out of 15,817 lawyers in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
#140,963 in weekly profile views out of 1,537,162 total lawyers Overall

Office Information

John J. Hare

2000 Market Street, Suite 2300
PhiladelphiaPA 19103




Loading...
 

Professional Networking for Legal Professionals Only

Quickly and easily expand your professional
network - join the premier global network for legal professionals only. It's powered by the
Martindale-Hubbell database - over 1,000,000 lawyers strong.
Join Now