Please read “Writ-Bits: Where Do Writs Fit,” the latest “Exceptionally Appealing” column by Duane Morris partner Benjamin Shatz in the Daily Journal.
Writ-Bits: Where Do Writs Fit?
‘One of the Most Stringent’: Recent Cases Highlight Pennsylvania’s Unforgiving Approach to Waiver
Robert Palumbos, partner and chair of the Appellate Division of the Duane Morris Trial Practice Group, was quoted in The Legal Intelligencer article “’One of the Most Stringent’: Recent Cases Highlight Pennsylvania’s Unforgiving Approach to Waiver” to discuss Pennsylvania’s waiver doctrine.
“My impression is that the Superior Court in particular has not applied waiver quite so strictly as it did in the past to 1925 statements. That’s part due to amendments to the Rule 1925 and in part due to, I think, how the Superior Court looks at practice under that rule. I think that carried over to some extent into other forms of waiver and issue preservation as well. But there have certainly been some big cases in 2026 where waiver featured prominently and I’m not sure at this point if that suggests trend back in that direction or not.”
Read the full article on The Legal Intelligencer’s website (subscription required).
The Path to an Appealable Final Judgment
Duane Morris Partner Joseph Cox and Special Counsel Jason Boatright co-authored the article “The Path to an Appealable Final Judgment” for the Dallas Bar Association Headnotes.
Appellate Trial Support: Accelerating Growth or ‘New Normal’ for Defense Teams?
Duane Morris Partner Leah Mintz was quoted in The Legal Intelligencer article “Appellate Trial Support: Accelerating Growth or ‘New Normal’ for Defense Teams?” to discuss the growing role of appellate attorneys during the trial stage of litigation.
“I think that trend has definitely continued and continued to accelerate. We have not seen a leveling off of interest, at least in our practice,” Mintz said, noting that they have seen “more and more clients coming to us for this type of work as they get close to trial.”
Read the full article on The Legal Intelligencer’s website (subscription required).
From the Mailbag – Feedback Tidbits Prompted by Past Columns
Please read “From the Mailbag – Feedback Tidbits Prompted by Past Columns,” the latest “Exceptionally Appealing” column by Duane Morris partner Benjamin Shatz in the Daily Journal.
Mulling Modifications
Please read “Mulling Modifications,” the latest “Exceptionally Appealing” column by Duane Morris partner Benjamin Shatz and associate Sylvia (Yoo Jin) Cheong in the Daily Journal.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Issues Regarding Vicarious Liability and Increased Risk of Harm in Upcoming Appeal
By Sharon L. Caffrey, Robert M. Palumbos, Anne A. Gruner and J.J. Larkins
On July 29, 2026, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted allocatur to review Hagans v. Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, in which the Superior Court affirmed a $182.7 million jury award that, accounting for delay damages, produced a judgment exceeding $207 million. The court will decide whether vicarious liability may be imposed on a hospital without an express jury finding against a specific named agent, and whether the jury may find liability based on either factual causation or increased risk of harm, resolving a direct conflict between Superior Court panels on this important causation question.
Read the full Alert on the Duane Morris LLP website.
Appellate Algebra Alert!
Assume you’re in federal court and you decide you need to petition the 9th Circuit for a discretionary interlocutory appeal of some sort. For example, this could be a petition under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure rule 23(f) to appeal an order granting or denying class-action certification. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure rule 5 sets forth the procedures governing such an “Appeal by Permission.”
Read the full version of this month’s “Exceptionally Appealing” column from Partner Benjamin G. Shatz at the Daily Journal.
Cite Out at the Big Nerd Corral
Standoff at the table of authorities. Two guides enter. Can only one survive?
Here we are again for that classic showdown: Blue versus Yellow. To set the stage, recall Rule 1.200 (Format of Citations), which states: “Citations to cases and other authorities in all documents filed in the courts must be in the style established by either the California Style Manual [commonly called the Yellowbook] or The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation, at the option of the party filing the document. The same style must be used consistently throughout the document.” How to choose? Let’s let the guides duke it out for themselves in gunslinger style. They square off at high noon at the mesa of authorities in a small opening brief somewhere in the Golden State….
Read the full version of this month’s “Exceptionally Appealing” column from Partner Benjamin G. Shatz at the Daily Journal.
A Few Words About Word Limits (in Complex Appeals)
The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure governing brief length are critical for judges and lawyers. Yet while they appear simple on their face, they can be deceptively complex. That is especially true in appeals involving multiple issues or parties. Regardless, counsel should streamline their briefs wherever possible. Doing so not only aids the work of the courts, but also helps represent clients most effectively.
Read the full article from the American Bar Association on the Duane Morris LLP website.
© 2026 by the American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.