# Willing v. Mazzocone

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 5, 1978 · 482 Pa. 377

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650273

## Case

- **Full name:** Helen WILLING, Appellant, v. Carl M. MAZZOCONE and Charles F. Quinn, Individually and T/A Mazzocone & Quinn, P. C. and Mazzocone & Quinn, P. C., Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 5, 1978
- **Citations:** 482 Pa. 377; 393 A.2d 1155
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pomeroy
- **Judges:** Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix, Manderino, Larsen
- **Cited by:** 58 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650273

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that injunction preventing Willing from carrying a "sandwich-board" sign denouncing her former lawyers, while ringing a cowbell and blowing a whistle, was an impermissible prior restraint under the state constitution as Willing had a right "to freely speak her opinion …
- concluding that the orders enjoining the appellant from further demonstrating and/or picketing were clearly prohibited by Article I, Section 7, and by Goldman Theatres, supra, regardless of the truthfulness of her speech
- holding that a permanent injunction against 14 defamatory speech violated a provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution that is substantially similar to Article I, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution
- holding that a permanent type of harm does not rise to the level necessary for the injunction against defamatory speech violated a provision prior restraint to withstand constitutional scrutiny."
- holding that a permanent injunction against defamatory speech violated a provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution that is substantially similar to Article I, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution

## Opinion text

POMEROY, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the decision of the Court to reverse the order of the Superior Court and the decree of the court of common pleas which the Superior Court affirmed.
My own views leading to this result are fully and clearly set forth in the careful opinion of Judge (now President Judge) Jacobs, joined by Judges Hoffman and Spaeth, dissenting in the Superior Court. I take the liberty of incorporating that opinion herein by reference. See Mazzocone v. Willing, 246 Pa.Super. 98, 109 , 369 A.2d 829, 834 (1977) (dissenting opinion of Jacobs, J.).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650273. Public record. Not legal advice.