Ritholz v. Arkansas State Board of Optometry
| Decision Date | 24 January 1944 |
| Docket Number | 4-7263 |
| Citation | 177 S.W.2d 410,206 Ark. 671 |
| Parties | Ritholz v. Arkansas State Board of Optometry |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Frank H. Dodge, Chancellor.
Affirmed.
E Chas. Eichenbaum, for appellant.
Howard Cockrill and Pat Mehaffy, for appellee.
The appeal is from a decree enjoining B. D. Ritholz and others [1] from practicing optometry through the services of licensed physicians or optometrists, or otherwise, and from continuing the character of advertising shown to have been engaged in, and from violating any of the provisions of Act 94 of 1941.
Ritholz and his associates represent themselves to be operators of the largest chain of optical stores in America. Their principal place of business is in Chicago. Prior to July, 1940, they had employed a physician whose compensation was $ 40 per week. None in the Ritholz partnership was a physician, optometrist, ophthalmologist, or in other respects professionally equipped. National maintains a Little Rock store at 207 Main Street and claims that its business is merchandising; that in effect it sells glasses the way a druggist fills prescriptions for medicine. In addition, it carries in stock an assortment of ready-made spectacles, and permits customers to fit themselves. This phase of the business is not complained of and is not within the judicial inhibition.
An excerpt from one of appellants' newspaper advertisements is: "All glasses sold by us are ground by expert optical artisans in our modern laboratory on prescription of a licensed doctor." This is inconsistent with the claim that National engaged exclusively in merchandising. Other misrepresentations were shown which do not come within the rule permitting legitimate "puffing."
The action is not one to enjoin the commission of a crime, as such. Its purpose, primarily, is to prevent the illegal practice of optometry, rather than to penalize the practitioner. If the latter alone were the object, Chancery would be without jurisdiction. The rule, as stated in 28 American Jurisprudence, Injunctions, § 148, at page 338, is that acts amounting to a public nuisance will be restrained if they affect the civil or property rights or privileges of the public, or endanger the public health, regardless of whether such acts are denounced as crimes.
The salaried physician (who also maintained an independent office at 319 1/2 Main Street) contracted with Ritholz and his associates, [2] to rent 96 square feet of office space occupied by National, payment to be $ 35 per month. This contract, prima facie, merely creates the relationship of landlord and tenant. Affirmative expressions were used in a seeming effort to emphasize what the Ritholzs now contend to have been the purpose -- that is, merely to provide convenient office quarters for the physician in order that National...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wyoming State Bd. of Examiners of Optometry v. Pearle Vision Center, Inc.
...995. Compare for more limited contract, State v. Ballez, 102 Ariz. 174, 427 P.2d 125 (1967). See also Ritholz v. Arkansas State Board of Optometry, 206 Ark. 671, 177 S.W.2d 410 (1944); State v. Plymouth Optical Co., 211 N.W.2d 278 (Iowa 1973); State v. Kindy Optical Co., 216 Iowa 1157, 248 ......
-
Wood v. Goodson, 5732
...of their punishment for contempt for wilfully violating previous injunctive orders of a chancery court. See Ritholz v. Arkansas State Board of Optometry, 206 Ark. 671, 177 S.W.2d 410. This is criminal contempt. See Ark.Stat.Ann. § 34--901 (Repl.1962). In Hudkins, we stated that since Rithol......
-
Arkansas State Bd. of Architects v. Clark
...injunctive relief has been upheld by this court are Van Hovenberg v. Holman, 201 Ark. 370, 144 S.W.2d 718; Ritholz v. Arkansas State Board of Optometry, 206 Ark. 671, 177 S.W.2d 410; Meyer v. Seifert, 216 Ark. 293, 225 S.W.2d 4, and Arkansas Bar Association v. Union National Bank, 224 Ark. ......
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. State Board of Optometry
...to the contrary in the contract, to inform us that it is at prices fixed by the company.' In Ritholz v. Arkansas State Board of Optometry, 1944, 206 Ark. 671, 177 S.W.2d 410, 411, Ritholz had prior to July, 1940, employed in his optical dispensary a physician. He was paid $40 per week. A la......