Mourot v. Arkansas Bd. of Dispensing Opticians
| Decision Date | 04 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-241,84-241 |
| Parties | Joe MOUROT, Marlin Freeman and Joyce Bailey, Appellants, v. ARKANSAS BOARD OF DISPENSING OPTICIANS, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Larry D. Vaught, Little Rock, for appellants.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Thomas S. Gay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
The Arkansas Board of Dispensing Opticians was created by Act 589 of 1981 (Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 72-2101--72-2123 [Supp.1983] ). Among the Board's duties are the registration and licensure of dispensing opticians. Applicants for registration or licensure are normally required to successfully complete an examination of their professional skills. However, section nine of the Act (Ark.Stat.Ann. § 72-2109) is a "grandfather clause" which allows the registration or licensure, without examination, of dispensing opticians who meet certain requirements. Under section nine, the requirements for obtaining a certificate of registry are somewhat different from the requirements for obtaining a certificate of licensure.
Appellants applied to the Board for certificates of licensure under section nine. The applications were denied. Appellants appealed to the full Board which, after interviews with appellants, again denied the applications. The Board stated that it was denying the applications because appellants had not "been providing direct retail ophthalmic dispensing services as [their] primary mode of employment or business." Appellants appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the decision of the Board. This appeal followed.
The Board's decision must be reversed because there is no requirement that an applicant for licensure must have "been providing direct retail ophthalmic dispensing services as his primary mode of employment or business ..." That language is taken from subsection (a) of section nine, which sets out the requirements to be met by applicants for certificates of registry. It has no application to applicants for certificates of licensure. The requirements for applicants for certificates of licensure are set out in subsection (b) of section nine. An applicant under subsection (b) need only show, in addition to requirements not in dispute here, that he has "been providing ophthalmic dispensing services to the public ... for a minimum period of five (5) years immediately prior to the effective date of [the] Act." Appellants met their burden of proof when they demonstrated that they have been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Leathers v. W.S. Compton Co., Inc.
...says and not what its drafters may have intended. Omega Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Maples, supra; Mourot v. Arkansas Bd. of Dispensing Opticians, 285 Ark. 128, 685 S.W.2d 502 (1985). The Commissioner has interpreted § 26-18-303(b)(11)(Q) in Revenue Regulation 1991-7, which is entitled "Disclos......
-
Omega Tube & Conduit Corp. v. Maples
...the primary concern is with what the document says and not what its drafters may have intended. Mourot v. Arkansas Board of Dispensing Opticians, 285 Ark. 128, 685 S.W.2d 502 (1985). When a statute is ambiguous, however, effect must be given to the legislative intent. McGee v. Amorel Pub. S......
-
Chandler v. Perry-Casa Public Schools Dist. No. 2, PERRY-CASA
...and ordinary meaning. If there is no ambiguity we give a statute effect just as it reads. Mourot, Freeman and Bailey v. Arkansas Board of Dispensing Opticians, 285 Ark. 128, 685 S.W.2d 502 (1985). We think the statute means exactly what it says and that the local boards of education may ass......
-
Tolhurst v. Reynolds, CA
...reads. Chandler v. Perry-Casa Public Schools District Number 2, 286 Ark. 170, 690 S.W.2d 349 (1985); Mourot v. Arkansas Board of Dispensing Opticians, 285 Ark. 128, 685 S.W.2d 502 (1985). In the instant case, appellant cannot rely upon Section 34-705.2 for admission of the blood tests into ......