Williams v. Commonwealth
Williams v. Commonwealth
Dissenting Opinion
DISSENTING OPINION
The Court today continues to permit a judicially created anachronism to deprive litigants of their day in court. I remain of the view that the doctrine of sovereign immunity ought, in its entirety, to be consigned to the judicial scrapheap. See McCoy v. Commonwealth, 457 Pa. 513, 514-16, 325 A.2d 396, 397-98 (1974) (dissenting opinion of Roberts, J., joined by Nix & Manderino, JJ.); Sweigard v. Pennsylvania Dep’t. of Transp., 454 Pa. 32, 35-38, 309 A.2d 374, 376-77 (1973) (dissenting opinion of Roberts, J., joined by Nix & Manderino, JJ.); Brown v. Commonwealth, 453 Pa. 566, 577-79, 305 A.2d 868, 871-72 (1973) (dissenting opinion of Roberts, J., joined by Nix & Manderino, JJ.); Biello v. Pennsylvania Liquor Control Bd., 454 Pa. 179, 187-92, 301 A.2d 849, 853-56 (1973) (dissenting opinion of Nix, J., joined by Roberts, J.).
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Order affirmed. See Brown v. Commonwealth, 453 Pa. 566, 305 A.2d 868 (1973).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.