public and private factors in Pennsylvania

2026See McConnell, 221 A.3d at 232 (concluding that the trial court misapplied the law in dismissing the case on forum non conveniens, noting there were not weighty reasons to disturb the plaintiff’s forum choice); Vaughan, 208 A.3d at 77 (reversing dismissal order where the public and private factors supported the plaintiff's chosen forum); see also Failor, 248 A.3d at 534-35 (stating “a court will ... not dismiss for forum non conveniens unless justice strongly militates in favor of relegating the plaintiff to another forum”) (emphasis in original; citation omitted).

2026See McConnell, 221 A.3d at 232 (concluding that the trial court misapplied the law in dismissing the case on forum non conveniens, noting there were not weighty reasons to disturb the plaintiff’s forum choice); Vaughan, 208 A.3d at 77 (reversing dismissal order where the public and private factors supported the plaintiff's chosen forum); see also Failor, 248 A.3d at 534-35 (stating “a court will ... not dismiss for forum non conveniens unless justice strongly militates in favor of relegating the plaintiff to another forum”) (emphasis in original, citation omitted).

2026Braun Medical Inc., 221 A.3d 221 (Pa. Super. 2019); and 6) where the public and private factors test favor keeping the case in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania? 3.

2026See McConnell, 221 A.3d at 232 (concluding that the trial court misapplied the law in dismissing the case on forum non conveniens, noting there were not weighty reasons to disturb the plaintiff’s forum choice); Vaughan, 208 A.3d at 77 (reversing dismissal order where the public and private factors supported the plaintiff's chosen forum); see also Failor, 248 A.3d at 534-35 (stating “a court will ... not dismiss for forum non conveniens unless justice strongly militates in favor of relegating the plaintiff to another forum”) (emphasis in original, citation omitted).

2026See McConnell, 221 A.3d at 228 ; see also Walker, 205 A.2d at 46 (in determining whether the weighty reasons compel dismissal of the action in Pennsylvania, our Supreme Court held that one of the factors in favor of Pennsylvania as a proper forum was that the defendant’s principal place of business was in Pennsylvania).

2026See McConnell, 221 A.3d at 228 ; see also Walker, 205 A.2d at 46 (in determining whether the weighty reasons compel dismissal of the action in Pennsylvania, our Supreme Court held that one of the factors in favor of Pennsylvania as a proper forum was that the defendant’s principal place of business was in Pennsylvania).

2026See McConnell, 221 A.3d at 232 (concluding that the trial court misapplied the law in dismissing the case on forum non conveniens, noting there were not weighty reasons to disturb the plaintiff’s forum choice); Vaughan, 208 A.3d at 77 (reversing dismissal order where the public and private factors supported the plaintiff's chosen forum); see also Failor, 248 A.3d at 534-35 (stating “a court will ... not dismiss for forum non conveniens unless justice strongly militates in favor of relegating the plaintiff to another forum”) (emphasis in original; citation omitted).

2026See McConnell, 221 A.3d at 232 (concluding that the trial court misapplied the law in dismissing the case on forum non conveniens, noting there were not weighty reasons to disturb the plaintiff’s forum choice); Vaughan, 208 A.3d at 77 (reversing dismissal order where the public and private factors supported the plaintiff's chosen forum); see also Failor, 248 A.3d at 534-35 (stating “a court will ... not dismiss for forum non conveniens unless justice strongly militates in favor of relegating the plaintiff to another forum”) (emphasis in original, citation omitted).

2019See Plum, 160 A.2d at 554 (“Proper application of the doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens necessitates that the court below make a finding as to the availability of other forums and then exercise its discretion after considering all the factors.”); Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 905 A.2d 544, 550 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“The trial judge . . . did not discuss the arguments presented by appellants, but focused primarily on - 11 - J-A22040-19 the parties’ lack of ties to [Pennsylvania].”); Bochetto, 94 A.3d at 1054 (abuse of discretion for trial court to engage in “one-sided discussion” of factors weig

2019See Plum, 160 A.2d at 554 (“Proper application of the doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens necessitates that the court below make a finding as to the availability of other forums and then exercise its discretion after considering all the factors.”); Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 905 A.2d 544, 550 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“The trial judge . . . did not discuss the arguments presented by appellants, but focused primarily on - 11 - J-A22040-19 the parties’ lack of ties to [Pennsylvania].”); Bochetto, 94 A.3d at 1054 (abuse of discretion for trial court to engage in “one-sided discussion” of factors weig

2019See Plum, 160 A.2d at 554 (“Proper application of the doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens necessitates that the court below make a finding as to the availability of other forums and then exercise its discretion after considering all the factors.”); Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 905 A.2d 544, 550 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“The trial judge . . . did not discuss the arguments presented by appellants, but focused primarily on - 11 - J-A22040-19 the parties’ lack of ties to [Pennsylvania].”); Bochetto, 94 A.3d at 1054 (abuse of discretion for trial court to engage in “one-sided discussion” of factors weig

2019See Plum, 160 A.2d at 554 (“Proper application of the doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens necessitates that the court below make a finding as to the availability of other forums and then exercise its discretion after considering all the factors.”); Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 905 A.2d 544, 550 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“The trial judge . . . did not discuss the arguments presented by appellants, but focused primarily on - 11 - J-A22040-19 the parties’ lack of ties to [Pennsylvania].”); Bochetto, 94 A.3d at 1054 (abuse of discretion for trial court to engage in “one-sided discussion” of factors weig

2019See Plum, 160 A.2d at 554 (“Proper application of the doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens necessitates that the court below make a finding as to the availability of other forums and then exercise its discretion after considering all the factors.”); Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 905 A.2d 544, 550 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“The trial judge . . . did not discuss the arguments presented by appellants, but focused primarily on - 11 - J-A22040-19 the parties’ lack of ties to [Pennsylvania].”); Bochetto, 94 A.3d at 1054 (abuse of discretion for trial court to engage in “one-sided discussion” of factors weig

2019See Plum, 160 A.2d at 554 (“Proper application of the doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens necessitates that the court below make a finding as to the availability of other forums and then exercise its discretion after considering all the factors.”); Wright v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc., 905 A.2d 544, 550 (Pa. Super. 2006) (“The trial judge . . . did not discuss the arguments presented by appellants, but focused primarily on - 11 - J-A22040-19 the parties’ lack of ties to [Pennsylvania].”); Bochetto, 94 A.3d at 1054 (abuse of discretion for trial court to engage in “one-sided discussion” of factors weig

2014Humes, 807 A.2d at 293 -94 (citing Poley v. Delmarva Power & Light Co., 779 A.2d 544, 546 (Pa.Super.2001)); see also Engstrom, 855 A.2d at 56 (in an interstate case, stating that appellants who “insist that ... the application of the public and private factors test was error” incorrectly invoked the standard of review for intrastate questions of forum non conveniens).

2014Humes, 807 A.2d at 293 -94 (citing Poley v. Delmarva Power & Light Co., 779 A.2d 544, 546 (Pa.Super.2001)); see also Engstrom, 855 A.2d at 56 (in an interstate case, stating that appellants who “insist that ... the application of the public and private factors test was error” incorrectly invoked the standard of review for intrastate questions of forum non conveniens).

2014Aerospace, 696 A.2d at 815 (recounting “significant connections” to the “American forum” and finding “American interest in this case is sufficient to justify the enormous commitment of judicial time and resources that would inevitably be required if the case were to be tried here.”) (emphasis added)....