# DiGIROLAMO v. Apanavage

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 4, 1973 · 454 Pa. 557

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694416

## Case

- **Full name:** DiGirolamo Et Al., Appellants, v. Apanavage
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 4, 1973
- **Citations:** 454 Pa. 557; 312 A.2d 382; 1973 Pa. LEXIS 795
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Manderino
- **Judges:** Jones, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Nix, Manderino
- **Cited by:** 25 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/9694416

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- reaffirming interspousal immunity solely on marital discord theory

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Manderino:
I dissent. The statute in this case which deprives a married woman of her right to file a legal claim is unconstitutional. The legislature cannot grcurvt immunity from suit to any person who has wronged another. There is no authority in the Pennsylvania Constitution which permits the legislature to deprive anyone of the opportunity to redress a wrong. In fact, the Declaration of Bights (Pa. Const. art. I, §11) specifically provides that “. . . every man for an injury done him in his lands, conditions, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law. . . .” See Brown v. Common *575 wealth, 453 Pa. 566 , 305 A. 2d 868 (1973) (Manderino, J., dissenting).
The above section of the Declaration of Rights, in the context of the entire Declaration, obviously uses the word man as a reference to human beings, and not as a reference to the male of the human species. The full protections of the Declaration of Rights are available to females as well as males. A legislative enactment which provides any defendant with immunity from suit is unconstitutional.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694416. Public record. Not legal advice.