Kate Naughton v. Hiram Johnson
Decision Date | 08 January 1917 |
Docket Number | No. 494,494 |
Citation | 61 L.Ed. 352,242 U.S. 344,37 S.Ct. 178 |
Parties | KATE P. McNAUGHTON, Appt., v. HIRAM W. JOHNSON, Governor of the State of California, et al |
Court | U.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.
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.'
Appellant—we 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.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Otto v. City of Boca Raton
......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
...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
...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
...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 ......