Reetz v. Michigan
Citations
- 188 U.S. 505
- 23 S. Ct. 390
- 47 L. Ed. 563
- 1903 U.S. LEXIS 1293
Syllabus
<p>A State' has power to make reasonable provisions for determining the qualifications of those engaged in the practice of medicine and for punishing those who attempt to engage therein in defiance of such statutory provisions.</p> <p>Act No. 237 of Michigan of 1889 creating a board of registration in medicine is not in conflict with the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.</p> <p>There is no provision in the Federal Constitution forbidding the State from granting to a tribunal, whether cabled a court or a board of registration, the final determination of a legal question. Due process of law is not necessarily judicial process, nor is the right of appeal essential to due process of law.</p> <p>When astatute fixes the time and place of meeting of any board or tribunal no special notice to parties interested is required to constitute due process of law as the statute itself is sufficient notice.</p> <p>A state statute requiring the registration of physicians and prohibiting those who are not so registered from practicing thereafter is not an ex post facto law as to a physician who had once engaged in practice, but who was held not to be qualified and whose registration was refused by the board of registration appointed under the statute, such statute not providing any punishment for his having practiced prior to the enactment thereof.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that -when a statute clearly fixes the time and place of meeting of a permitting board or tribunal, additional notice to persons wishing to attain a permit may not be required
- holding that when a statute clearly fixes the time and place of meeting of a permitting board or tribunal, additional notice to persons wishing to attain a permit may not be required
- observing that “[t]he power of a state to make reasonable provisions for determining the qualifications of those engaging in the practice of medicine . . . is not open to question”
- finding the notice provided under Section 14602.6 23 satisfies due process
- “Neither is the right of appeal essential to due process of law. In nearly every state are statutes giving, in criminal cases of a minor nature, a single trial, without any right of review.”
- regarding certificates of registration for persons practicing medicine and surgery
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Brewer, Haelan
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
140 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Abney v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1977-06-09· cited 2,295×
- Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco Inc.Supreme Court· 1987-04-06· cited 1,834×
- Phillips v. CommissionerSupreme Court· 1931-05-25· cited 930×
- Lindsey v. NormetSupreme Court· 1972-02-23· cited 901×
- Truax v. CorriganSupreme Court· 1921-12-19· cited 592×
- United States v. BrownSupreme Court· 1965-10-11· cited 529×
- St. Joseph Stock Yards Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1936-04-27· cited 469×
- Anderson National Bank v. LuckettSupreme Court· 1944-02-28· cited 410×
- Grayden v. RhodesEleventh Circuit· 2003-09-17· cited 294×
- City of West Covina v. PerkinsSupreme Court· 1999-01-13· cited 212×
- Pet v. Department of Health ServicesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1988-05-10· cited 181×
- People v. WoodyCalifornia Supreme Court· 1964-08-24· cited 171×
- Mount St. Mary's Hospital v. CatherwoodNew York Court of Appeals· 1970-05-14· cited 168×
- Douglas v. NobleSupreme Court· 1923-02-19· cited 164×
- Laisne v. California State Board of OptometryCalifornia Supreme Court· 1942-03-16· cited 148×
- Collins v. TexasSupreme Court· 1912-02-19· cited 141×
- Ohio Ex Rel. Bryant v. Akron Metropolitan Park DistrictSupreme Court· 1930-03-12· cited 138×
- Missouri Ex Rel. Hurwitz v. NorthSupreme Court· 1926-04-12· cited 90×
- National Union of Marine Cooks & Stewards v. ArnoldSupreme Court· 1954-11-22· cited 89×
- Kimberly Arrington v. Bill FullerEleventh Circuit· 2006-02-13· cited 86×
Cites
7 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Den Ex Dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.Supreme Court· 1856-02-19· cited 831×
- Ex Parte GarlandSupreme Court· 1867-01-14· cited 795×
- Dent v. West VirginiaSupreme Court· 1889-01-14· cited 764×
- McKane v. DurstonSupreme Court· 1894-05-14· cited 592×
- Hawker v. New YorkSupreme Court· 1898-04-18· cited 389×
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. BackusSupreme Court· 1894-05-26· cited 260×
- Andrews v. SwartzSupreme Court· 1895-02-04· cited 97×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.