WILLING V. MAZZOCONE 393 A.2d 1155 (Pa. 1978) CASE BRIEF

WILLING V. MAZZOCONE

393 A.2d 1155 (Pa. 1978)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Willing (D) challenged the order of the Superior Court (Pennsylvania) that modified and affirmed an injunction granted to Mazzocone (P) in its action to enjoin D from protesting outside of its place of business. D argued that the injunction violated her constitutional right to freedom of speech.

FACTS: D demonstrated in the pedestrian plaza in a well-traveled pedestrian pathway between the two court buildings located at City Hall and at Five Penn Center Plaza. D wore a 'sandwich-board' sign around her neck. On the sign she had hand lettered the following:

LAW -- FIRM of QUINN -- MAZZOCONE Stole money from me -- and Sold-me-out-to-the INSURANCE COMPANY.

She marched back and forth, pushing a shopping cart on which she had placed an American flag and rang a cow bell and blew on a whistle to further attract attention. P tried to amicably dissuade her from further activity and when that failed they filed a suit in equity in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County seeking to enjoin her from further demonstration. Ps represented D in workman's compensation case. D was awarded permanent/partial disability benefits which she collected for a number of years. At the time of the initial settlement distribution with D, Ps deducted the sum of $150.00 as costs of the case. That sum was paid in full to Robert DeSilverio, M.D., a treating psychiatrist who testified on D's behalf in the Workmen's Compensation matter. D offered no evidence other than her testimony that the cause of her antagonism towards Ps was not any dissatisfaction with the settlement, but rather, her belief that Ps had wrongfully diverted to themselves $25.00 of the $150.00 that was supposed to have been paid to Dr. DeSilverio. The Court then enjoined D from '. . . further unlawful demonstration, picketing, carrying placards which contain defamatory and libelous statements and or uttering, publishing and declaring defamatory statements against the [appellees] herein.' The Superior Court modified the trial court's order to read, 'Helen R. Willing, be and is permanently enjoined from further demonstrating against and/or picketing Mazzocone and Quinn, Attorneys-at-Law, by uttering or publishing statements to the effect that Mazzocone and Quinn, Attorneys-at-Law stole money from her and sold her out to the insurance company.' This appeal resulted.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner