State v. Brown
Citations
- 37 Wash. 97
- 68 L.R.A. 889
- 79 P. 635
- 1905 Wash. LEXIS 679
Syllabus
<p>Constitutional Law — Dentists—License foe Ownership of Dental Office. That portion of Laws, 1891, p. 314, requiring one to submit to an examination and secure a license from the state dental board, in order to “own, run or manage” a dental office, as distinguished from the practice of dentistry, is unconstitutional.</p> <p>Same — Police Power. Restricting the right to own, run, or manage a dental office is not &■ proper exercise of the police power, since technical knowledge or skill is not essential to the proper exercise of such right and is not required for the well being of the public, and the acts in question do not injuriously affect the health, good order, or safety of society.</p> <p>Same — Right of Property and Liberty. Restricting the right to own, run, or manage a dental office is an unwarranted abridgment of the private right of property and of the citizen’s liberty to engage in legitimate pursuits for a livelihood</p> <p>Appeal and Error — Briefs. A motion to strike a brief on the ground of an incorrect statement of the case and want of references to the record will be denied where the record is short and reference thereto not essential to the decision.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- following Lawton this court struck down a state law requiring dental offices to be owned by dentists on the ground such law was not necessary to further any valid state objective
- following Lawton this court struck down a state law requiring dental offices to be owned by dentists on the ground such law was not necessary to further any valid state objective
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Root
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
12 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Douglas v. NobleSupreme Court· 1923-02-19· cited 164×
- Seeley v. StateWashington Supreme Court· 1997-07-24· cited 105×
- In re the Proceedings for the Disbarment of BruenWashington Supreme Court· 1918-05-11· cited 98×
- People v. United Medical Service, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court· 1936-02-14· cited 53×
- State v. BorenWashington Supreme Court· 1950-06-07· cited 34×
- State ex rel. Mackintosh v. RossmanWashington Supreme Court· 1909-04-28· cited 16×
- Stoll v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co.W.D. Washington· 1913-04-28· cited 9×
- In re O'NeillWashington Supreme Court· 1905-12-27· cited 6×
- Noble v. DouglasW.D. Washington· 1921-04-15· cited 4×
- Taylor v. New System Prosthetic Dental Laboratory, Inc.Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court· 1932-05-27· cited 2×
- Brown v. Kansas State Board of Dental ExaminersSupreme Court of Kansas· 1924-02-09
- Taylor v. New System Prosthetic Dental Laboratory, Inc.Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court· 1932-07-01
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Yick Wo v. HopkinsSupreme Court· 1886-05-10· cited 3,789×
- Lawton v. SteeleSupreme Court· 1894-03-05· cited 909×
- Allgeyer v. LouisianaSupreme Court· 1897-03-01· cited 582×
- In re ThompsonWashington Supreme Court· 1904-12-22· cited 26×
- In re AubreyWashington Supreme Court· 1904-12-20· cited 19×
- State v. Carbon Hill Coal Co.Washington Supreme Court· 1892-06-22· cited 11×
- State v. NamiasSupreme Court of Louisiana· 1897-04-12· cited 5×
- Froelich v. MorseWashington Supreme Court· 1896-11-28· cited 3×
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.