Kate Naughton v. Hiram Johnson

Decision Date08 January 1917
Docket NumberNo. 494,494
Citation61 L.Ed. 352,242 U.S. 344,37 S.Ct. 178
PartiesKATE P. McNAUGHTON, Appt., v. HIRAM W. JOHNSON, Governor of the State of California, et al
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. Tom L. Johnston for appellant.

Messrs. Robert M. Clarke, Thomas Lee Woolwine, George E. Cryer, Ray E. Nimmo, and Mr. U. S. Webb, Attorney General of California, for appellees.

Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

This case was submitted with Crane v. Johnson, just decided [242 U. S. 339, 61 L. ed. 348, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 176]. It was considered in the district court with that case, three judges sitting as in that case. It comes here on appeal from an order denying an interlocutory injunction. The court entertained jurisdiction upon the authority of Raich v. Truax, 219 Fed. 273, 283; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 60 L. ed. 131, L.R.A. 1916D, 545, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 7.

The court, in denying the injunction, said 'that the granting of such orders is within the sound discretion of the court, and, in the exercise of such discretion, based upon the averments of the bills, we are of opinion that the application should be denied.' The court did not pass upon the merits, expressing a doubt of its authority to do so, as the court said it was composed of three judges, 'under statutory requirement.'

Appellantwe shall call her complainant, and state narratively the facts she alleged—is a regularly graduated ophthalmologist, which is a school of scientific learning and practice confined to the treatment of the inflammation of the eye and its membranes and in fitting glasses to the human eye. She has practised her profession in the city of Los Angeles for the past three years and is dependent upon the proceeds of her labor and services. She does not employ either medicine, drugs, or surgery, nor is there anything in her practice hurtful to the individual or dangerous to society.

In her practice it is absolutely necessary and indispensable that she measure the powers and range of human vision without the use of drugs, and there is no law in the state of California prescribing an examination for and regulating the practice of ophthalmology.

At its 40th session the legislature of California enacted a statute by which it provided that it should be unlawful for any person to engage in the practice of optometry without first having obtained a certificate of registration from the State Board of Optometry under an act to regulate that practice, approved March 20, 1903, and the acts amendatory thereof.

The practice of optometry is defined to be the employment of any means other than the use of drugs for the measurement of the powers or range of human vision, or the determination of the accommodative and refractive states of the human eye, or the scope of its functions in general, or the adaptation of lenses or frames for the aid thereof.

The board is given the power, among others, to visit schools where the science of optometry is taught, and accredit such as the board finds give a sufficient course of study for the preparation of optometrists; to keep a register of all persons to whom certificates of registration have been issued and of all itinerant licenses, and to grant or refuse or revoke such certificates. The act prescribes a course of examination, describes the particulars of the examinations, and provides that every applicant for an examination, upon passing it, shall be entitled to be registered in the board's register of optometrists, and a certificate of registration shall be issued to him.

'At such examinations the board shall examine applicants in the anatomy of the eye, in normal and abnormal refractive and accommodative and muscular conditions and co-ordination of the eye, in subjective and objective optometry, including the fitting of glasses, the principles of lens grinding and frame adjusting, and in such other subjects as pertain to the science and practice of optometry, such subjects to be enumerated in publication by the board. In case of failure, the applicant shall be examined at the next examination only in the subjects in which he failed. All such applicants, without discrimination, who shall satisfactorily pass such examination shall thereupon be registered in the board's register of optometrists and a certificate of registration shall be issued to them, under the seal and signature of the members of said board upon payment of a fee of $5. Such certificate shall continue in force until the first day of August in the year...

To continue reading

Request your trial
58 cases
  • Otto v. City of Boca Raton
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • July 20, 2022
    ......More than a century ago, in Crane v. Johnson , 242 U.S. 339, 340, 344, 37 S.Ct. 176, 61 L.Ed. 348 (1917), the Supreme ......
  • McMurdo v. Getter
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • September 20, 1937
    ...251 Mass. 283, 146 N.E. 708;Crane v. Johnson, 242 U.S. 339, 37 S.Ct. 176, 61 L.Ed. 348, Ann.Cas.1917B, 796;McNaughton v. Johnson, 242 U.S. 344, 37 S.Ct. 178, 61 L.Ed. 352, Ann.Cas.1917B, 801), dentists (Graves v. Minnesota, 272 U.S. 425, 47 S.Ct. 122, 71 L.Ed. 331), and optometrists. Common......
  • Sims v. Tinney
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court of South Carolina
    • September 16, 1977
    ...644, 54 L.Ed. 987 (1910); Collins v. Texas, 223 U.S. 288, 32 S.Ct. 286, 56 L.Ed. 429 (1912) (osteopaths); McNaughton v. Johnson, 242 U.S. 344, 37 S.Ct. 178, 61 L.Ed. 352 (1917) (ophthalmologist protesting exclusion from optometry); Crane v. Johnson, 242 U.S. 339, 37 S.Ct. 176, 61 L.Ed. 348 ......
  • Lehmann v. State Board of Public Accountancy
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • June 29, 1922
    ...the duties of the profession as affecting those of the general public they might be called upon to serve. Smith v. Texas, supra; McNaughton v. Johnson, supra; Reetz v. supra. Mr. Justice Lamar said of state statutes: That "none of the cases sustains the proposition that, under the power to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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