Willing v. Mazzocone
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
393 A.2d 1155 (1978)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
Helen Willing (defendant) was represented by the law firm of Mazzocone and Quinn (the firm) (plaintiff) in a workers’ compensation case. Willing was indigent and believed that the firm stole $25 of the settlement that was obtained in the case. Because of this, Willing demonstrated in a heavily trafficked area near City Hall, wearing a sign that accused the firm of stealing money from her and selling her out to the insurance company. While demonstrating, Willing pushed a shopping cart with an American flag, rang a cow bell, and blew on a whistle. Willing refused a request from the firm to stop demonstrating, and the firm sued her in equity, seeking an injunction against further demonstrations. The trial court found that the firm clearly did not steal from Willing and that Willing refused to believe convincing proof of this fact. The trial court entered an injunction against further unlawful demonstration containing defamatory and libelous statements against the firm. Willing appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, which only slightly modified the injunction. Willing appealed to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Manderino, J.)
Concurrence (Roberts, J.)
Dissent (Eagen, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.