Case Name: Alexander BRATIC and Joseph Proko, Respondents v. Charles W. RUBENDALL, II, and Keefer, Wood, Allen & Rahal, LLP, and Residential Warranty Corp. of Pennsylvania And Integrity Underwriters, Inc., Petitioners
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2013-04-17
Citations: 65 A.3d 294
Docket Number: 
Parties: Alexander BRATIC and Joseph Proko, Respondents v. Charles W. RUBENDALL, II, and Keefer, Wood, Allen & Rahal, LLP, and Residential Warranty Corp. of Pennsylvania And Integrity Underwriters, Inc., Petitioners.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 65
Pages: 294–294

Head Matter:
Alexander BRATIC and Joseph Proko, Respondents v. Charles W. RUBENDALL, II, and Keefer, Wood, Allen & Rahal, LLP, and Residential Warranty Corp. of Pennsylvania And Integrity Underwriters, Inc., Petitioners.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
April 17, 2013.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 17th day of April, 2013, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, as stated by petitioner, is:
Whether the trial court's transfer Order issued on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, based explicitly on the Cheeseman requirements, and the discretion of the trial court, exercised in a "sensible and well-reasoned manner," should have been affirmed where the petitioners had submitted to the trial court affidavit evidence of the oppression that the large number of eight key witnesses, each located more than one hundred miles from the trial court, would suffer if the action were permitted to proceed in a county so distant?