Indiana State Board of Dental Examiners v. Davis, 9,973
| Citation | 121 N.E. 142, 69 Ind.App. 109 |
| Case Date | March 15, 1918 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
121 N.E. 142
69 Ind.App. 109
INDIANA STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS ET AL.
v.
DAVIS
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.
OPINION
[69 Ind.App. 136] ON PETITION FOR REHEARING.
CALDWELL, J.
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
-
Ely v. City of Montpelier, 1068
...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
...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
...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......