Court Opinion

ID: 9765895
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 04:23:45.506957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:01.470015
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Bell :
I agree that the Court, for the reasons hereinafter stated, had the power to direct the State Reporter not to publish Justice Musmanno’s dissenting opinion in The Tribune Review Publishing Co. Case in the official “Pennsylvania State Reports”.
The majority opinion states: “Never once have we withheld, nor have we any intention of ever withholding, from publication in the official State Reports a dissenting opinion of any member of the Court if in accord with established rules and practices.”
Unfortunately there are no applicable statutes or rules, and there is a difference of opinion as to (a) what constitutes a real dissenting opinion, and (b) exactly what practices have been established.*
*171I believe it has been for 169 years, and should continue to be the universal practice in Pennsylvania, to have published in the official State Reports the Opinions of the Supreme Court which the Court directs to be published, as well as every Opinion of each Judge thereof — whether it be called a dissenting opinion, or a concurring opinion, or whatever its label — provided it is first circulated and thereafter filed of record simultaneously with the majority opinion or at such subsequent time as the majority permit. I believe this is likewise the practice followed in the Supreme Court of the United States, and in the highest Court in New York.
Dissenting opinions sometimes become, after circulation and consultation, the majority opinion of the Court, and at other times have caused the majority opinion to be modified or rewritten. This is the reason why it is wise to require that all opinions be circulated among the members of the Court and that they all be filed simultaneously. Furthermore, the value, importance and influence of dissenting opinions in the historical development and improvement of the law have been so tremendous* and so well known to Bench, *172Bar and legislative bodies that to arbitrarily deny the right to publish them in the official Reports' would be utterly repugnant to the spirit of the times, to our fundamental ideas of fair play and justice, to our lifetime practice, and to sound public policy.
It follows that in the instant case Justice Musmanno had an absolute right ab initio to have his dissenting opinion published in the official State Reports. The fact that a majority of this Court believes that the constitutional question of freedom of speech and press, which was specifically raised and vigorously argued, was not then justiciable, does not prohibit Justice Musmanno from having a contrary view, or bar him from officially expressing his opinion of the case on its merits. See, inter alia: South v. Peters, 339 U. S. 276; Eisler v. United States, 338 U. S. 189; Colegrove v. Green, 328 U. S. 549; Forbes Road Union Church and Sunday School v. Salvation Army, 381 Pa. 249, 113 A. 2d 311; Darlington v. Reilly, 375 Pa. 583, 101 A. 2d 903; Werner v. King, 310 Pa. 120, 164 A. 918; Crane v. Crane, 373 Pa. 1, 95 A. 2d 199; Miller v. Lutheran Conference & Camp Asso., 331 Pa. 241, 200 A. 646; Jacobs v. Fetzer, 381 Pa. 262, 112 A. 2d 356; Clark v. Meade, 377 Pa. 150, 104 A. 2d 465.
*173However, an absolute right to have a dissenting or other opinion (irrespective of what it be called) published, may, like many other rights, be waived or lost. Appellant agreed in this case to the Opinion of the Court and thereby, in my judgment, waived his right to have any dissenting opinion of his published in the official Reports.

 Justice Musmanno filed of record his dissenting opinion 9 days after the Opinion of the Court had been filed. The usual custom is to file a majority and dissenting opinion simultaneously; *171however, there have been exceptions. For example, see: Philadelphia Electric Co. v. Philadelphia, 301 Pa. 291, 152 A. 23, where the majority opinion was filed of record June 21, 1930, and the dissenting opinion October 7, 1930; Beirne v. Continental-Equitable Title & Trust Co., 307 Pa. 570, 161 A. 721, where the majority opinion was filed of record May 26, 1932, and the dissenting opinion June 16, 1932; and Johnson v. Rulon, 363 Pa. 585, 70 A. 2d 325, where the majority opinion was filed of record January 3, 1950, and the dissenting opinion January 16, 1950.

 The dissenting opinion in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dallas 419, was a contributing factor in the passage of the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; the dissenting opinions in Sanford v. Dred Scott, 19 Howard 393, produced the Fourteenth Amendment; the dissenting opinion in Pollock v. Farm*172ers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, became the law of the land by the Sixteenth Amendment. The famous jurist, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his last 12 years on the Court wrote 298 majority opinions and dissented 122 times, of which 40 were in the form of dissenting opinions. Justice Brandéis wrote 117 majority opinions and 75 dissenting opinions. Chief Justice Stone wrote 159 majority opinions and 80 dissenting opinions. Justice Owen J. Roberts wrote 297 majority opinions and dissented 185 times, of which 128 were in the form of dissenting opinions. In the legally stable period of 1929-1937 approximately 14% of all opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States were dissenting opinions. In the last 10 years an opinion of the Supreme Court is frequently accompanied by 1 to 6 dissenting or concurring opinions.