Salisbury Beauty Schools v. State Board of Cosmetologists

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that attorney’s actions within scope of retainer are binding on the client under ordinary agency principles
• affirming the constitutionality of a statute requiring that beauty schools charge only the cost of materials for services performed by students
• citing, e.g., Fitch v. Double ‘U’ Sales Corp., 212 Md. 324, 339 (1957)
• citing, e.g., Fitch v. Double ‘U’ Sales Corp., 212 Md. 324, 339 (1957)
• “That [a] statute may undertake indirectly to control prices and affect competition does not per se render it invidious or unconstitutional[.]”
• also involving a governmental entity, not a third party

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).