Spindel v. Jamison, No. 4807
| Docket Nº | No. 4807 |
| Citation | 199 Va. 954, 103 S.E.2d 205 |
| Case Date | April 28, 1958 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Virginia |
Page 205
v.
JOHN S. JAMISON, ET AL., ETC.
Page 206
[199 Va. 955] Robert G. Doumar and Edward T. Caton, III, for the appellant.
Frederick T. Gray, Special Assistant Attorney General (A. S. Harrison, Jr., Attorney General; Thomas M. Miller, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for the appellees.
JUDGE: HUDGINS
HUDGINS, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court.
This is an appeal from a decree affirming an order of the Virginia State Board for the Examination and Certification of Architects, Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, hereinafter designated Board,
Page 207
denying the application of Gilbert Donald Spindel, hereinafter designated applicant, for a certificate of resignation as a professional engineer.The pertinent facts are not in dispute and are as follows: On January 22, 1954, applicant filed with the Board his application for a certificate of registration as a professional engineer. In his application he stated that he was a registered engineer under the laws of the District of Columbia, that he had never passed a written examination and was not registered in any other state. It also appears from the application that since January, 1930, applicant has been practicing engineering in various capacities with numerous employers, including the Western Union Telegraph Company, the United States Navy Yard, Brooklyn, New York, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers which awarded him a meritorious emblem for his engineering work. He has also written and published two books on engineering and designing of homes.
On receipt of his application the Board made inquiries as to the qualifications of the applicant and ascertained that he had been granted a certificate in the District of Columbia under a 'grandfather clause,' and without examination by, or appearance before, the Board in that jurisdiction. Applicant was notified by the Board that his application had been approved subject to his passing an oral examination, and two dates were fixed for his appearance and examination. On each occasion he asked for a continuance which was granted, extending the application for a period of approximately one year. Subsequent to January 22, 1954, applicant filed a supplemental application in which he stated that he had been registered as a professional [199 Va. 956] engineer in South Carolina and Georgia, and held a certificate, number 1790, issued by the National Bureau of Engineering Registration.
On June 3, 1955, the Board wrote applicant a letter stating that he would be given an oral examination at 3:30 p.m., June 23, 1955, Thornton Hall, University of Virginia. In the letter applicant was informed that:
'In taking the oral examination the applicants must appear before the Board and submit documentary evidence substantiating the experience record which he has submitted in his application. Documentary evidence required consists of plans, specifications, designs and other documents which can be clearly identified as the work of the applicant, which will show clearly the nature of the scope of the work, as well as the applicant's degree of responsibility. Letters of recommendation may be submitted at the oral examination. It is the responsibility of the applicant to furnish such evidence for the Board to reach a decision.
'In case documentary evidence furnished is not sufficient, a written examination will be required at a future meeting of the Board. * * * If for any reason you are unable to appear at the scheduled time, please notify this office by return mail. * * * P.S. It is requested that you be prepared to exhibit your ability to make various types of calculations required by a Civil Engineer.'
Pursuant to this notice applicant with his attorney appeared before the Board in Charlottesville, but refused to answer any technical questions or to explain the plans and designs he claimed to have made for a simple building in Portsmouth. In the formal hearing held later, a member of the Board stated that applicant 'lists practically everything that could be done by a civil engineer, but yet when we had our oral interview he never answered the first technical question, and the exhibits that he brought to explain, to show to us, was a building in Portsmouth, a very simple building, and he couldn't...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hawkins v. Moss, No. 73-1601
...Ohio Misc. 138, 259 N.E.2d 167 (chiropractors); Mercer v. Hemmings (1967) Fla., 194 So.2d 579 (accountants); Spindel v. Jamison, supra (103 S.E.2d 205) (professional engineers); People v. Griswold (1914) 213 N.Y. 92, 106 N.E. 929 (dentists); Bloom v. Mo. Board of Architects, Professional En......
-
Fairfax v. CBS Corp., No. 20-1298
...word ‘may,’ as opposed to ‘shall’ ... evidences ... discretion to grant or refuse the defendant's motion ...."); Spindel v. Jamison , 199 Va. 954, 103 S.E.2d 205, 208 (1958) ("The word ‘may’ should not be construed to mean ‘must’ or ‘shall,’ unless the clear intention of the legis......
-
Brown v. Supreme Court of Virginia, Civ. A. No. 700-71-R
...as a professional engineer, Virginia has had occasion to consider the permissiveness granted under reciprocity in Spindel v. Jamison, 199 Va. 954, 103 S.E.2d 205 (1958). There is no vested right imposed by law. In Mercer v. Hemmings, (Fla.) 194 So.2d 579, 582, it was held that out-of-state ......
-
Mercer v. Hemmings, No. 34373
...he held certificate of registration granted him by proper authorities in another jurisdiction.' Also see Spindel v. Jamison (1958), 199 Va. 954, 103 S.E.2d 205, 208. Thus, it is apparent that the reciprocal certificates as outlined in the quoted statute are 'privileges', as distinguished fr......
-
Hawkins v. Moss, No. 73-1601
...Ohio Misc. 138, 259 N.E.2d 167 (chiropractors); Mercer v. Hemmings (1967) Fla., 194 So.2d 579 (accountants); Spindel v. Jamison, supra (103 S.E.2d 205) (professional engineers); People v. Griswold (1914) 213 N.Y. 92, 106 N.E. 929 (dentists); Bloom v. Mo. Board of Architects, Professional En......
-
Fairfax v. CBS Corp., No. 20-1298
...the word ‘may,’ as opposed to ‘shall’ ... evidences ... discretion to grant or refuse the defendant's motion ...."); Spindel v. Jamison , 199 Va. 954, 103 S.E.2d 205, 208 (1958) ("The word ‘may’ should not be construed to mean ‘must’ or ‘shall,’ unless the clear intention of the legislature......
-
Brown v. Supreme Court of Virginia, Civ. A. No. 700-71-R
...as a professional engineer, Virginia has had occasion to consider the permissiveness granted under reciprocity in Spindel v. Jamison, 199 Va. 954, 103 S.E.2d 205 (1958). There is no vested right imposed by law. In Mercer v. Hemmings, (Fla.) 194 So.2d 579, 582, it was held that out-of-state ......
-
Mercer v. Hemmings, No. 34373
...he held certificate of registration granted him by proper authorities in another jurisdiction.' Also see Spindel v. Jamison (1958), 199 Va. 954, 103 S.E.2d 205, 208. Thus, it is apparent that the reciprocal certificates as outlined in the quoted statute are 'privileges', as distinguished fr......