May a jurist rule in verse, if he's dignified and terse?

Or are some texts meant to be wholly free of poetry?

A dissent last month by a justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in seven quatrains and one footnote, drew a sharp response from two colleagues.

Chief Justice Stephen A. Zappala wrote that ''an opinion that expresses itself in rhyme reflects poorly on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.''

Justice Ralph J. Cappy said ''every jurist has the right to express him or herself in a manner the jurist deems appropriate,'' but expressed concern about ''the perception that litigants and the public at large might form when an opinion of the court is reduced to rhyme.''