# Willing v. Mazzocone

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

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650274

## 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:** Dissent by Eagen
- **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/9650274

## 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

EAGEN, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons articulated in my dissenting opinion in Wm. Goldman Theatres v. Dana, 405 Pa. 83 , 173 A.2d 59 , cert. denied, 368 U.S. 897 , 82 S.Ct. 174 , 7 L.Ed.2d 93 (1961).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9650274. Public record. Not legal advice.