Augustus Reetz v. People of the State of Michigan, No. 143
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Brewer |
| Citation | 188 U.S. 505,47 L.Ed. 563,23 S.Ct. 390 |
| Parties | AUGUSTUS G. REETZ, Plff. in Err. , v. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN |
| Docket Number | No. 143 |
| Decision Date | 23 February 1903 |
v.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.
Act No. 237 of the public acts of the state of Michigan (1899) directed the appointment of 'a board of registration in medicine,' to hold two regular meetings at specified times in each year at the state capitol, and additional meetings at such times and places as it might determine; required all persons engaging in the practice of medicine and surgery to obtain from such board a certificate of registration; prescribed the conditions
Page 506
upon which such certificate should be granted, and forbade, under penalty, the practice of medicine or surgery without such certificate. The conditions above referred to were either a satisfactory examination, or the possession of 'a diploma from any legally incorporated, regularly established, and reputable college of medicine, . . . having at least a three years' course of eight months in each year, or a course of four years of six months in each year, . . . as shall be approved and designated by the board of registration,' with a proviso that 'the board of registration shall not register any person by reason of a diploma from any college which sells, or advertises to sell, diplomas 'without attendance,' nor from any other than a regularly established and reputable college.' Another provision was that an applicant should be given a certificate of registration if he should 'present sufficient proof within six months after the passage of this act of his having already been legally registered under act No. 167 of 1883, as amended in 1887, entitled 'An Act to Promote Public Health." The plaintiff in error was prosecuted and convicted in the circuit court for the county of Muskegon of a violation of this statute, which conviction was affirmed by the supreme court of the state (127 Mich. 87, 86 N. W. 396), to reverse which ruling this writ of error was sued out.
Messrs. William P. Belden, Edwin A. Burlingame, and Jesse F. Orton for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Charles B. Cross, Charles A. Blair, George S. Lovelace, and Horace M. Oren for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice Brewer delivered the opinion of the court:
The power of a state to make reasonable provisions for determining the qualifications of those engaging in the practice of medicine, of those engagin in the practice of medicine, and punishing those who attempt to engage therein in defiance of such statutory provisions, is not open to question. Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114, 32 L. ed. 623, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 231; Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S. 189, 42 L. ed. 1002, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 573, and cases cited in the opinion; State ex rel. Burroughs v. Webster, 150 Ind. 607, 41 L. R. A. 212, 50 N. E. 750, and cases cited.
Page 507
It is objected in the present case that the board of registration is given authority to exercise judicial powers without any appeal from its decision, inasmuch as it may refuse a certificate of registration if it shall find that no sufficient proof is presented that the applicant had been 'legally registered under act No. 167 of 1883.' That, it is contended, is the determination of a legal question which no tribunal other than a regularly organized court can be empowered to decide. The decision of the state supreme court is conclusive that the act does not conflict with the state Constitution, and we know of no provision in the Federal Constitution which forbids a state from granting to a tribunal, whether called a court or a board of registration, the final determination of a legal question. Indeed, it not infrequently happens that a full discharge of their duties compels boards, or officers of a purely ministerial character, to consider and determine questions of a legal nature. Due process is not necessarily judicial process. Den ex dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improv. Co. 18 How. 272, 15 L. ed. 372; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 07, 24 L. ed. 616; Ex parte Wall, 107 U. S. 265, 289, 27 L. ed. 552, 562, 2 Sup. Ct. Rep. 569; Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U. S. 71, 83, ante, 28, 32, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28, 32; People v. Hasbrouck, 11 Utah, 291, 39...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Crary
...due regard being had to the nature of the proceeding and the character of the rights which may be affected by it. Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 505, 508, 23 S. Ct. 390, 47 L. Ed. 563; Hurwitz v. North, 271 U. S. 2 F. Supp. 880 40, 46 S. Ct. 384, 70 L. Ed. 818; Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548, ......
-
People v. Woody, Cr. 1794
...state within constitutional limits to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of society. (Reetz v. People of State of Michigan, 188 U.S. 505, 23 S.Ct. 390, 47 L.Ed. 563; Gray v. State of Connecticut, 159 U.S. 74, 15 S.Ct. 985, 40 L.Ed. 80; Mugler v. State of Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 8......
-
Stevens v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., A143043
...is not required by the Federal Constitution to provide appellate courts or a right to appellate review at all”]; Reetz v. Michigan(1903) 188 U.S. 505, 508, 23 S.Ct. 390, 47 L.Ed. 563[“Neither is the right of appeal essential to due process of law”].) In any event, the IMR process is itselfa......
-
Lehmann v. State Board of Public Accountancy, 3 Div. 567.
...the instances are rare; and this is not one of these exceptional cases. Ewing v. St. Louis, 5 Wall. 413, 18 L.Ed. 657; Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U.S. 505, 23 S.Ct. 390, 47 L.Ed. 563. It is held by the Supreme Court of the United States that in creating such boards state Legislatures do not exe......
-
United States v. Crary
...due regard being had to the nature of the proceeding and the character of the rights which may be affected by it. Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 505, 508, 23 S. Ct. 390, 47 L. Ed. 563; Hurwitz v. North, 271 U. S. 2 F. Supp. 880 40, 46 S. Ct. 384, 70 L. Ed. 818; Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. 548, ......
-
People v. Woody, Cr. 1794
...state within constitutional limits to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of society. (Reetz v. People of State of Michigan, 188 U.S. 505, 23 S.Ct. 390, 47 L.Ed. 563; Gray v. State of Connecticut, 159 U.S. 74, 15 S.Ct. 985, 40 L.Ed. 80; Mugler v. State of Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 8......
-
Stevens v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd., A143043
...is not required by the Federal Constitution to provide appellate courts or a right to appellate review at all”]; Reetz v. Michigan(1903) 188 U.S. 505, 508, 23 S.Ct. 390, 47 L.Ed. 563[“Neither is the right of appeal essential to due process of law”].) In any event, the IMR process is itselfa......
-
Lehmann v. State Board of Public Accountancy, 3 Div. 567.
...the instances are rare; and this is not one of these exceptional cases. Ewing v. St. Louis, 5 Wall. 413, 18 L.Ed. 657; Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U.S. 505, 23 S.Ct. 390, 47 L.Ed. 563. It is held by the Supreme Court of the United States that in creating such boards state Legislatures do not exe......
-
THE REASONABLENESS OF THE "REASONABLENESS" STANDARD OF HABEAS CORPUS REVIEW UNDER THE ANTITERRORISM AND EFFECTIVE DEATH PENALTY ACT OF 1996.
...80 (1930); Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 533, 536 (1926); Frank v. Mangum, 237 U.S. 309, 327 (1915); Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U.S. 505, 508 (1903); Murphy v. Massachusetts, 177 U.S. 155, 158 (1900); Kohl v. Lehlback, 160 U.S. 293, 297 (283.) 514 U.S. 115 (1995) (per curiam). ......