Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P was a law firm and came to court for equitable relief. For several hours on October 1, 1975, D demonstrated in front of the entrance of P’s office building in Centre City Philadelphia. D’s demonstration consisted of her pushing a shopping cart while ringing a cowbell and blowing a whistle. D also wore a sandwich board, which read that P’s law firm sold her out to the insurance company and stole money from her. P attempted to amicably terminate the demonstration, but that effort failed. P was a two-member law firm that was retained by D in 1968 to prosecute her claim for workmen’s compensation benefits. Even though D got a favorable result, D believed that P’s had wrongfully diverted to themselves $25 of the settlement proceeds. D’s version of the events was not in accord with the hard and substantial evidence, and D presented no evidence to refute the almost absolute proof that P produced to show that P did not steal from D. The trial court found that D was in serious disbelief and was most probably seriously mentally unstable. The court also found that unless stayed, D would probably continue her bizarre parade and defamatory accusations that would continue to embarrass and humiliate P. The trial court granted the injunction. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.