Lamb v. Registered Dentists
| Decision Date | 18 January 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 43648,43648 |
| Citation | 492 P.2d 1401 |
| Parties | Jim C. LAMB, Plaintiff in Error, v. The REGISTERED DENTISTS of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Finch & Finch, Sapulpa, for plaintiff in error.
Lyons & Dean, Pryor, for defendant in error.
In this action, instituted by defendant in error, hereafter referred to as 'plaintiff', plaintiff in error, a dental technician, hereafter referred to as 'defendant', was enjoined from practicing dentistry without a license; and he has appealed.
One of defendant's argument is that the purported verification on the petition, signed by one Jim E. Porter, as plaintiff's 'duly authorized representative', does not meet the requirements of 12 O.S.1961, § 292, for valid verifications, because it contains no statement that the facts alleged therein were within Porter's personal knowledge. Defendant made no attempt to raise the question of the verification's sufficiency except by demurrer and amended demurrer to plaintiff's petition. And the record shows no trial court ruling on either of these pleadings. For the reason stated in Myers v. Diehl, Okl., 365 P.2d 717 (1st syll.), we do not consider the question. Notice also Educators Automobile Insurance Co. v. Jones, Okl., 428 P.2d 277 (3rd syll.).
Defendant further urges that the action should have been brought in the name of plaintiff's Board of Governors, because it is the only body mentioned in 59 O.S.1961, § 327.43, which authorizes writs of injunction as a means of enforcing the Act.
After careful examination and study of the Act, we find that plaintiff's authority to apply for court injunctions is included by implication in the general powers vested in it by Section 327.4 of the Act (to use and be sued and to employ attorneys and other necessary personnel to assist in enforcing the Act). We find nothing in the Rifleman case (State ex rel. Board of Governors of Registered Dentists v. Rifleman), 203 Okl. 294, 220 P.2d 441, the Crouch and Rushing case (Board of Governors of Registered Dentists v. Crouch and Rushing v. Board of Governors), Okl., 391 P.2d 796, or the Melton case (Board of Governors of Registered Dentists v. Melton), Okl., 428 P.2d 205 (cited by defendant), that we regard as constituting a persuasive argument against this interpretation of the Act.
Defendant's arguments under his second proposition pertain to plaintiff's elicitation from defendant, as its witness, of testimony concerning his activities in violation of The State Dental Act. He points out that the Act's Section 327.5 contemplates criminal prosecution of those violating the Act, and refers to various stages of the trial at which he unsuccessfully attempted to exclude this testimony from the record on the ground it was self-incriminating. However, undisputed testimony of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berry v. Board of Governors of Registered Dentists of Oklahoma
...as that of "The Registered Dentists of Oklahoma," to bring an action for injunctive relief was acknowledged in Lamb v. Registered Dentists, 492 P.2d 1401, 1402 (Okl.1972). II The allegation is made by the denturists that under the statutory schematic system of the Dental Act, they have been......
-
Board of Governors of Registered Dentists of Oklahoma v. Burk, 48287
...of the defendant by Snider. We have held in an injunction case involving the illegal practice of dentistry, Lamb v. Registered Dentists, Okl., 492 P.2d 1401 (1972), that in connection with cumulative evidence: '* * * the admission of improper evidence is harmless when 'purely The appellant'......
-
Butler v. Board of Governors of Registered Dentists of Oklahoma, 52851
...as that of 'The Registered Dentists of Oklahoma,' to bring an action for injunctive relief was acknowledged in Lamb v. Registered Dentists, 492 P.2d 1401, 1402 (Okl.1972)." (Footnote As both The Board of Governors of Registered Dentists and The Registered Dentists of Oklahoma are duly const......