John J. Hare, Attorney


portrait

John J. Hare update listing

Other, Litigation, Civil & Human Rights, Accident & Injury, General Practice

215-575-2609


  • Profile LAWPOINTS42/ 100
    LAWPOINTS™ measure the overall completeness of a Lawyer's profile. More complete profiles are ranked higher and help visitors select the right lawyer faster.
    We help paid Members build more complete and informative profiles.
    LAWPOINTS™ do not measure a Lawyer's reputation.
    More Info for Lawyers
  • No Misconduct Found 
  • Upgrade to a premium listing
  • Update your listing
  • LAWYERID Not Available
    LawyerID™'s identify each individual within Lawyer.com’s directory of 2M global lawyers and help to ensure that the most accurate, up-to-date records are being kept on every lawyer. If you are a practicing lawyer without a LawyerID prominently displayed on your Lawyer.com profile, please call 800-840-0600 to receive one.
    Contact Us
  • 215-575-2609

Please include all relevant details from your case including where, when, and who it involves. Case details that can effectively describe the legal situation while also staying concise generally receive the best responses from lawyers.

John is a highly-experienced appellate attorney who serves as Chair of the firm's seven-attorney Appellate Advocacy & Post-Trial Practice Group. He has litigated more than 300 appeals in state and federal appellate courts. John's 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 both 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.

In 2008 and 2009, John was 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 appears in the 2009 and 2010 editions of Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition.

Significant Representative Cases

  • 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 insurance company, 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,  2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 27544 (3d Cir., December 16, 2009)
  • The Pennsylvania Superior Court vacated a $5 million 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)
  • 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 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)
  • 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)
  • 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 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, 2007 PA Super 119 (Pa. Super. 2007)
  • 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 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 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 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 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 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)
Position Organization Location Duration
School Degree Major Graduation
Duquesne University School of Law Law SchoolN/A  
University of California
State / Court Date
Pennsylvania1994
District 1
  • Van Zandt v. Holy Redeemer Hospital 2002

  • Toogood v. Rogal 2003

  • Stalsitz v. Allentown Hospital 2004

  • Seawright v. Greenberg 2007

  • Philadelphia Owners Association v. City of Philadelphia et al 2003

  • Pakett v. The City of Philadelphia et al 2005

  • O'Hara v. Randall 2005

  • My Le Duong v. Nationwide Ins. Co. 2006

  • Laverdure v. County of Montgomery 2003

  • Johnson v. Vanguard Manufacturing 2002

  • Crystal Lake Camps v. Alford 2007

  • Connor v. Crozer Keystone Health Sys. 2003

Sun. Mon. Tue. Wed. Thu. Fri. Sat.


Lawyers with longer memberships tend to have more experience so we use the Membership date to help prioritize lawyer listings on search pages.

Verified Credentials Date Verified

Above credentials have been verified independently by Lawyer.com.

PA

Service Type: Private

Update Date: 2023-10-19

https://www.lawyer.com/seal/1669179i.png, https://www.lawyer.com/seal/1669179p.png, https://www.lawyer.com/seal/1669179f.png, https://www.lawyer.com/seal/1669179v.png, https://www.lawyer.com/seal/d/featured-medium.png, https://www.lawyer.com/seal/d/verified-medium.png, https://www.lawyer.com/seal/d/featured-small.png, https://www.lawyer.com/seal/d/verified-small.png,

To recommend or link to this lawyer as a trusted attorney, we have provided a list of sample links. Please choose the one that meet your needs.

Want a Premium Customized Photo Badge?

Call Toll Free: 800-620-0900

Lawyer Badge
Image Link 1
John J. Hare  Lawyer Badge
Corresponding HTML Codes
<div id="Lcom"><a href="//www.lawyer.com/john-hare.html"><img alt="Lawyer.com" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal/1669179i.png"></a></div><script type="text/javascript" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal.js"></script>
Image Link 2
John J. Hare  Lawyer Badge
Corresponding HTML Codes
<div id="Lcom"><a href="//www.lawyer.com/john-hare.html"><img alt="Lawyer.com" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal/1669179p.png"></a></div><script type="text/javascript" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal.js"></script>
Image Link 3
John J. Hare  Lawyer Badge
Corresponding HTML Codes
<div id="Lcom"><a href="//www.lawyer.com/john-hare.html"><img alt="Lawyer.com" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal/1669179f.png"></a></div><script type="text/javascript" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal.js"></script>
Image Link 4
John J. Hare  Lawyer Badge
Corresponding HTML Codes
<div id="Lcom"><a href="//www.lawyer.com/john-hare.html"><img alt="Lawyer.com" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal/1669179v.png"></a></div><script type="text/javascript" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal.js"></script>
Image Link 5
John J. Hare  Lawyer Badge
Corresponding HTML Codes
<div id="Lcom"><a href="//www.lawyer.com/john-hare.html"><img alt="Lawyer.com" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal/1669179d/featured-medium.png"></a></div><script type="text/javascript" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal.js"></script>
Image Link 6
John J. Hare  Lawyer Badge
Corresponding HTML Codes
<div id="Lcom"><a href="//www.lawyer.com/john-hare.html"><img alt="Lawyer.com" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal/1669179d/verified-medium.png"></a></div><script type="text/javascript" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal.js"></script>
Image Link 7
John J. Hare  Lawyer Badge
Corresponding HTML Codes
<div id="Lcom"><a href="//www.lawyer.com/john-hare.html"><img alt="Lawyer.com" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal/1669179d/featured-small.png"></a></div><script type="text/javascript" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal.js"></script>
Image Link 8
John J. Hare  Lawyer Badge
Corresponding HTML Codes
<div id="Lcom"><a href="//www.lawyer.com/john-hare.html"><img alt="Lawyer.com" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal/1669179d/verified-small.png"></a></div><script type="text/javascript" src="//www.lawyer.com/seal.js"></script>
Text Link 1
Corresponding HTML Codes
<div id="Lcom" style="width:250px;text-align:center;background-color: #fbaa02;padding:3px;"><a href="http://www.lawyer.com/john-hare.html" style="color: #fff;text-decoration:none;size: 12px;">Lawyer.com Listed: John J. Hare</a></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.lawyer.com/seal.js"></script>
Text Link 2
Corresponding HTML Codes
<div id="Lcom" style="width:250px;text-align:center;background-color: #fbaa02;padding:3px;"><a href="http://www.lawyer.com/john-hare.html" style="color: #fff;text-decoration:none;size: 12px;">Lawyer.com Verified: John J. Hare</a></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.lawyer.com/seal.js"></script>
Change Date Change Field Previous Content
2020-10-06Phone+1 2155752600
2023-11-02Firm NameMarshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin
2020-10-06Address1845 Walnut Street Philadelphia PA 19103 US
John J. Hare
2000 Market St
Suite 2300
Philadelphia, PA 19103
39.9525,-75.1644

MAIN LOCATION

2000 Market St
Suite 2300
Philadelphia, PA 19103


Other Locations:

WEBSITE

LAWYER BADGES

SAMPLE LEGAL CASES

2024 Guide to Motorcycle Accidents
2024 Guide to Your Rights after a Motorcycle Accident
Las Vegas' Adverse Possession Law
Adverse possession is the legal concept that if the owner of the land isn’t using it, and someone else is giving the land a useful purpose for long enough, the law favors the useful purpose over the land being left unused.
[VIDEO] "Timeshare Restrictions in Huntington Beach, California" by Newport Beach Real Estate Attorneys
Due to the high traffic, noise, lowering property value, and other issues arising from the temporary nature of timeshares, cities often enact ordinances regulating the development and use of Timeshares within city limits.