Carp v. Texas State Board of Examiners In Optometry, 481
| Decision Date | 01 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 481,481 |
| Citation | Carp v. Texas State Board of Examiners In Optometry, 389 U.S. 52, 88 S.Ct. 241, 19 L.Ed.2d 51 (1967) |
| Parties | Ellis CARP et al. v. TEXAS STATE BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN OPTOMETRY et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Thurman Arnold, Robert E. Herzstein, Douglas E. Bergman, Quentin Keith and Price Daniel, for appellants.
Crawford C. Martin, Atty Gen. of Texas, George M. Cowden, First Asst. Atty. Gen., J. C. Davis and John Reeves, Asst. Attys. Gen., Will Garwood and Tom Gee, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., and A. J. Carubbi, Jr., for appellee Texas State Board of Examiners in Optometry.
Ellis Lyons, Bennett Boskey, Charles M. Babb and Mark Martin, for other appellees.
The motions to dismiss are granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for a writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
Mr. Justice FORTAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Maryland Tuna Corporation v. Ms Benares
... ... was not sufficiently present in the State of New York to afford a basis for personal ... 786, 42 L.Ed. 1192 (1898); Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Murphy, 111 U.S. 488, 489, 4 ... ...
-
In re McLean Industries, Inc.
... ... allegedly owed it for fuel oil delivered on board the AMERICAN UTAH, a vessel owned by the debtor, ... located in London, England but its invoices state that it also has offices in Hong Kong, Norway, ... ...
-
Nordic Bank PLC v. Trend Group, Ltd.
... ... The remaining counts in the complaint state common law claims ... After ... Ekman was Chairman of the Board until April 20, 1983. Naper and Ekman remain ... to serve DnC at its office in Houston, Texas. That service was both untimely — well after ... ...
-
Freeman v. Gordon & Breach, Science Publishers, Inc.
... ... in accordance with the law of the state where the court sits, with `federal law' entering ... ...