Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jedwabny v. Philadelphia Transportation Co.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided October 10, 1957No. Appeals, 188, 189, 190, 191 and 192Published

1Dissent

Dissenting Opinion by

Mr. Justice Bell:

I disagree with the Court’s order and opinion because they are in my judgment both unrealistic and unfair. The Court admits that it is not necessary for a defendant to be represented by an attorney; it is sufficient if he has an opportunity to employ one, and in a case like this, to make “an informed choice”. There is no decision, rule, principle or canon that requires the trial Judge under such circumstances to be the informant — only a moron would be uneonversant with or ignorant of the situation and the penalty with which the driver of the automobile…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Ratcliff v. MyersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1955
  2. Pascarella v. Pittsburgh Railways Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  3. Byers v. VargoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API