State v. Randolph
Citations
- 23 Or. 74
- 17 L.R.A. 470
- 31 P. 201
- 1892 Ore. LEXIS 106
Syllabus
<p>1. Constitutional Law — Police Power of State.—Every person has the right to pursue any lawful occupation he may choose, subject to such restrictions as the government may impose for the protection of society; and this power to regulate and restrict is inherent in every government, and is a broad and comprehensive one.</p> <p>2. Constitutional Law — Regulation of the Practice of Medicine and Surgery.'— Session Laws, 1889, 144, as amended by Session Laws, 1891, 153, which makes it unlawful for any person to practice medicine or surgery in the state without first obtaining from the state board of examiners a certificate that he is a graduate of a medical institution in good standing; or, if he is not a graduate, that he has been found on examination to be qualified to practice medicine or surgery; or that he was a practitioner of medicine or surgery, and was so engaged at the passage of the act, does not violate the constitution of Oregon, article I., section 20, which declares that “ no law shall be passed granting to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, on the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens”; nor the constitution of the United States, article IV., section 2, which declares that “the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states”; nor the constitution of the United States, 14th Amendment, which provides that “no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States”: since it neither grants nor refuses to any citizen, or class of citizens, any right or privilege. This law simply prescribes a rule of evidence for determining the qualifications of physicians and surgeons ; and the rule prescribed is a reasonable one.*</p> <p>3. The equal privileges or immunities of citizens are not infringed by a statute which exempts those who are practicing medicine or surgery at the time of its pa
Judges: Lord
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. PutneyOregon Supreme Court· 1924-03-25· cited 23×
- State v. CatholicOregon Supreme Court· 1915-03-23· cited 21×
- Klein v. Real Estate Commissioner HolbrookCourt of Appeals of Oregon· 1974-12-09· cited 18×
- State v. BairSupreme Court of Iowa· 1900-12-20· cited 17×
- State v. BakerOregon Supreme Court· 1907-12-17· cited 15×
- Churchill v. City of AlbanyOregon Supreme Court· 1913-06-24· cited 14×
- Jones v. Union CountyOregon Supreme Court· 1912-11-26· cited 12×
- Runyan v. WinstockOregon Supreme Court· 1909-10-26· cited 5×
- Hackney v. JusticeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1914-05-22· cited 3×
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Dent v. West VirginiaSupreme Court· 1889-01-14· cited 764×
- State ex rel. Powell v. State Medical Examining BoardSupreme Court of Minnesota· 1884-07-19· cited 71×
- State v. DentWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1884-11-01· cited 40×
- Singer v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1890-06-19· cited 37×
- Ex parte SpinneyNevada Supreme Court· 1875-10-15· cited 31×
- State ex rel. Walker v. GreenIndiana Supreme Court· 1887-12-02· cited 26×
- State v. NoyesSupreme Judicial Court of Maine· 1859-07-01· cited 25×
- State v. PennoyerSupreme Court of New Hampshire· 1889-06-05· cited 18×
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.