Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners
| Decision Date | 01 April 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 538,538 |
| Parties | SEMLER v. OREGON STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. F. S. Senn, of Portland, Or., and H. R. Colwell, of East Falls Church, Va., for appellant.
This case presents the question of the validity of a statute of the state of Oregon, enacted in 1933, relating to the conduct of dentists. Oregon Laws 1933, c. 166, p. 208. Previous legislation had provided for the revocation of licenses for unprofessional conduct, which, as then defined, included advertising of an untruthful and misleading nature. The Act of 1933 amended the definition so as to provide the following additional grounds for revocation: 'advertising professional superiority or the performance of professional services in a superior manner; advertising prices for professional service; advertising by means of large display, glaring light signs, or containing as a part thereof the representation of a tooth, teeth, bridge work or any portion of the human head; employing or making use of advertising solicitors of free publicity press agents; or advertising any free dental work, or free examination; or advertising to guarantee any dental service, or to perform any dental operation painlessly.' Laws 1933, p. 210, § 2.
Plaintiff, a dentist practicing in Portland, Or., brought this suit in the state court against the members of the State Board of Dental Examiners to enjoin the enforcement of the statute, alleging that it was repugnant to the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, and impaired the obligation of contracts in violation of section 10, cl. 1, art. 1 of the Constitution of the United States. The circuit court, overruling this contention, sustained a demurrer to the complaint and, upon the refusal of plaintiff to plead further, the suit was dismissed. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the state took the same view of the federal question and affirmed the judgment. 34 P.(2d) 311. The case comes here on appeal.
Plaintiff alleged in his complaint that he was licensed in 1918; that he had continuously advertised his practice in newspapers and periodicals, and by means of signs of the sort described in the amended statute, and that he had employed advertising solicitors; that in his advertise- ments he had represented that he had a high degree of efficiency and was able to perform his professional services in a superior manner; that he had stated the prices he would charge, had offered examinations of prospective patients without charge, and had also represented that he guaranteed all his dental work and that his dental operations were performed plainlessly. He further alleged that the statements in his advertisements were truthful and were made in good faith; that by these methods he had developed a large and lucrative practice; that through long training and experience he had acquired ability superior to that of the great majority of practicing dentists; that he had been able to standardize office operations, to purchase supplies in large quantities and at relatively low prices, and thus to establish a uniform schedule of charges for the majority of operations; also, that he had made contracts for display signs and for advertisements in newspapers, and had entered into other engagements, of which he would be unable to take advantage if the legislation in question were sustained, and, in that event, his business would be destroyed or materially impaired.
Plaintiff is not entitled to complain of interference with the contracts he describes, if the regulation of his conduct as a dentist is not an unreasonable exercise of the protective power of the state. His contracts were necessarily subject to that authority. Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co., 240 U.S. 342, 363, 36 S.Ct. 370, 60 L.Ed. 679, L.R.A. 1917A, 421, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 455; Union Dry Goods Co. v. Georgia Public Service Commission, 248 U.S. 372, 375, 376, 39 S.Ct. 117, 63 L.Ed. 309, 9 A.L.R. 1420; Sproles v. Binford, 286 U.S. 374, 391, 52 S.Ct. 581, 76 L.Ed. 1167; Stephenson v. Binford, 287 U.S. 251, 276, 53 S.Ct. 181, 77 L.Ed. 288, 87 A.L.R. 721. Nor has plaintiff any ground for objection because the particular regulation is limited to dentists and is not extended to other professional classes. The state was not bound to deal alike with all these classes, or to strike at all evils at the same time or in the same way. It could deal with the different professions according to the needs of the public in relation to each. We find no basis for the charge of an unconstitutional discrimination. Watson v. Maryland, 218 U.S. 173, 179, 30 S.Ct. 644, 54 L.Ed. 987; Miller v. Wilson, 236 U.S. 373, 384, 35 S.Ct. 342, 59 L.Ed. 628, L.R.A. 1915F, 829; State of Missouri ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 271 U.S. 40, 43, 46 S.Ct. 384, 70 L.Ed. 818; Dr. Bloom Dentist, Inc., v. Cruise, 288 U.S. 588, 53 S.Ct. 320, 77 L.Ed. 967.
The question is whether the challenged restrictions amount to an arbitrary interference with liberty and property and thus violate the requirement of due process of law. That the state may regulate the practice of dentistry, prescribing the qualifications that are reasonably necessary, and to that end may require licenses and establish...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
NJ SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOCIATION v. PRUDENTIAL INS. COMPANY OF AMERICA
...with the different professions according to the needs of the public in relation to each." Semler v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608, 610, 55 S.Ct. 570, 571, 79 L.Ed. 1086 (1935). Indeed, one court has held that it is permissible for HHS to deny Medicare reimbursement comp......
-
Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms Int'l, LLC
...Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70, 77, 129 S. Ct. 538, 172 L. Ed. 2d 398 (2008); Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608, 611-12, 55 S. Ct. 570, 79 L. Ed. 1086 (1935); Varney & Green v. Williams, 155 Cal. 318, 321, 100 P. 867 (1909), overruled in part on other g......
-
State v. Peters
...483, 489, 75 S.Ct. 461, 465, 99 L.Ed. 563, 573 (1955) (citations omitted). See also Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608, 610, 55 S.Ct. 570, 571, 79 L.Ed. 1086, 1089 (1935) ("The State was not bound to deal alike with all these classes, or to strike at all evils at......
-
Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms Int'l, LLC
...Altria Group, Inc. v. Good , 555 U.S. 70, 77, 129 S.Ct. 538, 172 L.Ed.2d 398 (2008) ; Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners , 294 U.S. 608, 611–12, 55 S.Ct. 570, 79 L.Ed. 1086 (1935) ; Varney & Green v. Williams , 155 Cal. 318, 321, 100 P. 867 (1909), overruled in part on other g......
-
Inconvenient Federalism: The Pandemic, Abortion Rights, and the Commerce Clause
...relating to such professions as dentistry requiring a high degree of scientific learning”); Semler v. Or. State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608, 612 (1935) (observing that, in regulating dental practice, “[t]he legislature was not dealing with traders in commodities, but with the vit......
-
Table of Cases
...(1985): 17.4(1) Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 107 S. Ct. 2704, 97 L. Ed. 2d 37 (1987): 21.3(4) Semler v. Or. State Bd. of Dental Exam'rs, 294 U.S. 608, 55 S. Ct. 570, 79 L. Ed. 1086 (1935): 2.2 Shapero v. Kentucky Bar Ass'n, 486 U.S. 466, 108 S. Ct. 1916, 100 L. Ed. 2d 475 (1988): 2.2, 2.3......
-
Chapter 20
...8–29 n.243 Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46, 37 S. Ct. 377, 61 L. Ed. 585 (1917): 16–36 n.332 Semler v. Or. State Bd. of Dental Exam'rs, 294 U.S. 608, 55 S. Ct. 570, 79 L. Ed. 1086 (1935): 11–3 n.3 Shapero v. Ky. Bar Ass'n, 486 U.S. 466, 108 S. Ct. 1916, 100 L. Ed. 2d 475 (1988): 11–4; 11–4 ......
-
The Glucksberg & Quill Amicus Curiae Briefs: verbatim arguments opposing assisted suicide.
...flow from an abandonment of the prohibition against physician-assisted suicide. E.g., Semler v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608, 612-13 (1935) (state's strong interest in "maintenance of professional standards" permits it to enforce "a general rule even though in particul......