State Bd. of Cosmetology v. Maddux, 22153
| Decision Date | 15 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 22153,22153 |
| Citation | 428 P.2d 936,162 Colo. 550 |
| Parties | STATE BOARD OF COSMETOLOGY, Plaintiff in Error, v. Jean MADDUX and Gerald Maddux, d/b/a Southern Colorado Beauty College, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen., Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., William E. Tucker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Clifton A. Flowers, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff in error.
Morris Rifkin, Denver, for defendants in error.
This writ of error is to test the validity of a license revocation made by the State Board of Cosmetology against Jean and Gerald Maddux, d/b/a Southern Colorado Beauty College in the City of Pueblo.
The record discloses that the Madduxes, after being licensed, were served in 1964 with a written notice of ten purported violations of the board's rules in the operation of their college. We note that two of the purported violations were of C.R.S. '53, 32--1--1 and 32--1--4 (now C.R.S.1963, 32--1--1 and 4), and the other eight were of specified rules of the board adopted by virtue of the authority granted it under 32--1--18.
The Madduxes denied the charges at a hearing before the board and again in the trial court where they also asserted that the statute was unconstitutional because of a purported lack of statutory standards in section 18. The trial court upset the license revocation by the board when it held the act unconstitutional for that reason.
Although several grounds are urged as error by the board, we need only consider two, viz.:
(1) That the trial court erred in holding section 18 unconstitutional as failing to establish any rule or guide for the revocation of a license; and,
(2) That even if no standards are provided by the act, nevertheless, the board has an inherent power to revoke or suspend a license, for good cause, without statutory authority.
A reading of the entire chapter 32 discloses the following pertinent wording:
'No beauty school shall be granted a certificate of registration unless it shall attach to its staff as a consultant, a person licensed by this state to practice an unlimited or limited branch of medicine, and employ and maintain a sufficient number of competent instructors, registered as such, and require a school term of training of not less than one thousand hours for a complete course comprising the majority of the practices, and a proportional number of hours as approved by the board, for any one or a combination of the practices of cosmetology, to include practical demonstrations, written or oral tests, and practical instructions in sanitation, sterilization, and the use of antiseptics, cosmetics and electrical appliances, consistent with the practical and theoretical requirements as applicable to cosmetology.'
And we note that section 18 in part grants the board:
'* * * the power to revoke and suspend certificates, supervise and inspect beauty schools and beauty shops upon proof of violation of the rules and regulations established by the board.'
In the instant case, the Madduxes were cited before the board
'* * * for having violated the Rules and Regulations governing the teaching and practicing of cosmetology in the State of Colorado, as adopted by the State Board of Cosmetology effective February 1, 1962, and the provisions of C.R.S. '53, 32--1--1 etc. * * *.'
The particulars of the alleged violations in part specifically concerned breaches of rules directly related to the statutory requirements set forth in C.R.S.1963, 32--1--1 and 4, such as a failure to have the proper number of licensed instructors; a failure to include written and practical instructions; in permitting an unlicensed person, who was not a student, to do professional work; and in permitting unlicensed instructors to teach.
As we read the entire act, we believe that it adequately provides standards and guidelines under which the board could and did promulgate and adopt its rules--and which rules these defendants in error were found to have violated, after a hearing before the board.
In statutes of this kind it is not practical or realistic to expect the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Perry v. Miller
...the power to revoke such license for good cause," citing 53 C.J.S. Licenses § 44, at 649 (1948). See also State Board of Cosmetology v. Maddux, 162 Colo. 550, 428 P.2d 936 (1967); Arrow Express Forwarding Co. v. Iowa State Commerce Comm., 256 Iowa 1088, 130 N.W.2d 451 (1964); Bartlett v. St......
-
State v. Nichols
...v. Massell, 463 F.2d 449 (5 Cir.); Hope v. Contractors' State License Bd., 228 Cal.App.2d 414, 39 Cal.Rptr. 514; State Bd. of Cosmetology v. Maddux, 162 Colo. 550, 428 P.2d 936; State Bd. of Funeral Directors v. Cooksey, 147 Fla. 337, 3 So.2d 502, aff'd, 148 Fla. 271, 4 So.2d 253; Kravis v.......
-
Elizondo v. State, Dept. of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division
...of Health, 179 Colo. 223, 499 P.2d 1176 (1972); People v. Giordano, 173 Colo. 567, 481 P.2d 415 (1971); State Board of Cosmetology v. Maddux, 162 Colo. 550, 428 P.2d 936 (1967); Asphalt Paving Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 162 Colo. 254, 425 P.2d 289 (1967); Swisher v. Brown, 157 Co......
-
Squire Restaurant and Lounge, Inc. v. City and County of Denver
...hearing even when no power of revocation or applicable standard was provided for in the governing statute. State Board of Cosmetology v. Maddux, 162 Colo. 550, 428 P.2d 936 (1967). Squire and the majority rely on Elizondo v. State, 194 Colo. 113, 570 P.2d 518 (1977) as standing for the prop......