# Dorris v. Lloyd (No. 1)

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · November 24, 1953 · 375 Pa. 474

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701728

## Case

- **Full name:** Dorris, Appellant, v. Lloyd
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 24, 1953
- **Citations:** 375 Pa. 474; 100 A.2d 924; 1953 Pa. LEXIS 482
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Musmanno
- **Judges:** Musmanno, Stern, Stearns, Jones, Bell, Chidsey, Mtjsmanno, Arnold
- **Cited by:** 30 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/9701728

## Opinion text

Dissenting Opinion by
Me. Justice Musmanno:
The strength of the American Republic, the durability of its freedom-dedicated institutions, the glory of its enlightened achievements and the assurance of its *480 ever-progressive, prosperous, happy future, stem mostly from the genius of its two party system of government. So long as the people have it within their hands, through the lever of suffrage over the fulcrum of popular sovereignty, to turn one party out of office and another in, the always present danger of usurpation of power, tyrannical oppression, or arrogant indifference to duty will never crystallize into reality.
The Republican and Democratic Parties in the United States are not simply vote-seeking organizations; they are official bodies horn of the Constitution and the law of the land. The officials of each party obtain their positions through the same processes of popular selection which control the election of legislators, executives and judges. The plaintiff in this case, Dr. John L. Dorris, is the chairman of the Democratic Party of Luzerne County by virtue of the vote of Democratic electors. As county chairman of the Democratic Party he has serious responsibilities, one of which is to maintain an ever vigilant eye on the activities of the opposition party. The chairman- of the Republican Party, of course, has the same- responsibilities as against its opposition party.
I, therefore, do not agree with the majority Opinion that the plaintiff does not have a particular interest in the subject matter of this litigation apart from that generally entertained by the public. The duly elected chairman of a political party has not only an interest in the proper discharge of their public functions by government officials, but he has a duty to protest, in such manner as is open to him to protest, against any misconduct or assumed misconduct on the part of government officials. All that the plaintiff desires and asks for in this case is an opportunity to present his facts in Court. If his presentation does not make out a prima facie case, his complaint will be *481 dismissed. But I do not believe that it comports with our scheme of government to close the doors of the Court in his face on the assumption that his interest is simply private and not public.
In the case of Sherman v. Yiddisher Kultur Farband, 375 Pa. 108, 117 , I expounded at length my views on the rights of American citizens to initiate legal proceedings in matters involving the security of the Nation. The same principle is applicable here insofar as it appertains to the welfare of a County.
Each morning the Court Crier of this Court opens the session by proclaiming: “All manner of men who stand bound by recognizance or otherwise have to do before the honorable, the Justices of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, here holden this day may now appear and they shall be heard.” (Emphasis supplied)
I would hear the plaintiff in these proceedings and order that he be heard in the court below.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9701728. Public record. Not legal advice.