Indiana State Board of Dental Examiners v. Davis, 9,973

Citation121 N.E. 142, 69 Ind.App. 109
Case DateMarch 15, 1918
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

121 N.E. 142

69 Ind.App. 109


No. 9,973

Court of Appeals of Indiana

March 15, 1918

[121 N.E. 143] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [121 N.E. 144] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [121 N.E. 145] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [121 N.E. 146] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [121 N.E. 147] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [121 N.E. 148] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [121 N.E. 149] [Copyrighted Material Omitted] [121 N.E. 150]

69 Ind.App. 109. At 136.

Original Opinion of December 4, 1917, Reported at: 69 Ind.App. 109.

Petition overruled.




It is urged that, in holding that the state board is a proper party to this proceeding on appeal, we ran counter to In re Coffin, supra. A like question was not involved in that case. There the state board of medical registration and examination denied an applicant, Eliza E. Coffin, a license to practice medicine, on the ground of gross immorality. She appealed to the Starke Circuit Court. At the time of the appeal Glazebrook was deputy prosecuting attorney for the Starke Circuit Court. Subsequently he left the county temporarily, and arranged with Robbins, a lawyer, to look after his business in court during his absence. Glazebrook was succeeded by Courtright as deputy prosecutor. In Glazebrook's absence, and after he had been succeeded by Courtright, Robbins as the representative of Glazebrook agreed with Coffin's attorneys that a judgment might be entered in her favor that she was entitled to a certificate for a license, and judgment was entered accordingly, and that the state [121 N.E. 151] board should issue such license. No question of parties was before the court. The question was as to Robbins' authority as the representative of Glazebrook to make such an agreement.

It may be said in addition that the appeal there was not prosecuted from an examination to determine [69 Ind.App. 137] professional competency, or under a statute requiring the state board to show cause, etc., although the Medical Act involved contained such a provision. The appeal there was taken under § 5 of the act then in force (Acts 1897 p. 255, supra) authorizing the state board to refuse or to revoke a certificate on account of gross immorality, and providing for an appeal.

In the original opinion we cited Indiana Board, etc. v. Haag (1916), 184 Ind. 333, 111 N.E. 178, not as an authority, but...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Ely v. City of Montpelier, 1068
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 19, 1969
    ...92 N.E.2d 544; State ex rel. Bradshaw v. Probate Ct. (1947) 225 Ind. 268, 272, 73 N.E.2d m69; Indiana State Board, etc. v. Davis (1917) 69 Ind.App. 109, 118, 121 N.E. Since the stautes are both penal and remedial, it is fundamental that the charges alleged must be full, clear complete and c......
  • State v. Borah, Civil 3788
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • February 28, 1938
    ...incompetents from following the business. Redmond v. State, 152 Miss. 54, [51 Ariz. 322] 118 So. 360; Indiana State Board v. Davis, 69 Ind.App. 109, 121 N.E. 142. But this right is not and never was an absolute, unqualified, or vested right, but was always subordinate to the police power of......
  • City of Fort Wayne v. Bishop, 28613
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 16, 1950
    ...State ex rel. Bradshaw v. Probate Court, 1947, 225 Ind. 268, 272, 73 N.E.2d 769; Indiana State Board etc. v. Page 547 Davis, 1917, 69 Ind.App. 109, 118, 121 N.E. 142. It has been said that the term 'penalty' might [228 Ind. 311] be held to embrace all the consequences visited by law upon th......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT