State of Missouri Hurwitz v. North

Decision Date12 April 1926
Docket NumberNo. 209,209
Citation70 L.Ed. 818,271 U.S. 40,46 S.Ct. 384
PartiesSTATE OF MISSOURI ex rel. HURWITZ v. NORTH et al., Board of Health of State of Missouri
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Mr. I. V. McPherson, of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff in error.

Messrs. North T. Gentry and J. Henry Caruthers, both of Jefferson City, Mo., and Jesse W. Barrett, of St. Louis, Mo., for defendants in error.

Mr. Justice STONE delivered the opinion of the Court.

Plaintiff in error was a physician licensed to practice by the state board of health of Missouri. On complaint made to the board, and after notice and hearing, his license to practice was revoked on the ground that he had unlawfully produced an abortion. The proceedings before the board were reviewed on certiorari by the state circuit court and the determination of the board sustained. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Missouri the judgment was affirmed. 264 S. W. 678, 304 Mo. 607. The case comes here on writ of error. Judicial Code, § 237 (Comp. St. Supp. 1925, § 1214).

By section 7336 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, the state board of health is authorized to grant licenses for the practice of medicine within the state, and, after hearing, to revoke licenses 'for producing criminal abortions,' and for other specified causes. Hearings are required to be upon 20 days' written notice, personally served upon the physician against whom charges are made, containing 'an exact statement of the charges and the date and place set for hearing.' The statute provides:

'Testimony may be taken by deposition, to be used in evidence on the trial of such charges before the board in the same manner and under the same rules and practice as is now provided for the taking of depositions in civil cases.'

It is also provided that proceedings before the board may be reviewed by the state circuit court on certiorari and, as was done here, an appeal may be taken from the judgment of the circuit court to the Supreme Court of the state.

Plaintiff's assignments of error assail the correctness of various rulings of the state court as to the meaning and effect of the statute drawn in question. These assignments must be disregarded here, as upon writ of error to a state court we are bound by its construction of the state law. See West v. Louisiana, 24 S. Ct. 650, 194 U. S. 258, 48 L. Ed. 965; Gatewood v. North Carolina, 27 S. Ct. 167, 203 U. S. 531, 541, 51 L. Ed. 305; Watson v. Maryland, 30 S. Ct. 644, 218 U. S. 173, 54 L. Ed. 987; Schneider Granite Co. v. Gast Realty Co., 38 S. Ct. 125, 245 U. S. 288, 290, 62 L. Ed. 292. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that, in the proceedings for the revocation of the plaintiff's license, he was entitled to take testimony on deposition, as provided by the statute, but not to subpoena witnesses to appear before the board, and that his application for such subpoenas was properly denied. It is assigned as error that these rulings and the revocation of plaintiff's license by the state board of health were a denial of due process of law and of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.

It has been so often pointed out in the opinions of this court that the Fourteenth Amendment is concerned with the substance and not with the forms of procedure as to make unnecessary any extended discussion of the question here presented. The due process clause does not guarantee to a citizen of a state any particular form or method of state procedure. Its requirements are satisfied if he has reasonable notice, and reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present his claim or defense; due regard being had to the nature of the proceedings and the character of the rights which may be affected by it. Hurtado v. California, 4 S. Ct. 111, 110 U. S. 516, 28 L. Ed. 232; Maxwell v. Dow, 20 S. Ct. 448 176...

To continue reading

Request your trial
87 cases
  • United States v. Crary
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia
    • October 24, 1932
    ...arises. In addition to Bragg v. Weaver, supra, 251 U. S. 57, 40 S. Ct. 62, 64 L. Ed. 135; see State of Missouri ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 271 U. S. 40, 42, 46 S. Ct. 384, 70 L. Ed. 818. In Dohany v. Rogers, 281 U. S. 362, 369, 50 S. Ct. 299, 302, 74 L. Ed. 904, 68 A. L. R. 434, it is said: ......
  • Phillips v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • May 25, 1931
    ...court on certiorari. These provisions amply protect the transferee against improper administrative action. Compare Hurwitz v. North, 271 U. S. 40, 46 S. Ct. 384, 70 L. Ed. 818. It is argued that such review by the Board of Tax Appeals and Circuit Court of Appeals is constitutionally inadequ......
  • Commonwealth v. Gallo
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1931
    ...which are in our opinion decisive against this contention of the defendant. To the same effect are State of Missouri ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 271 U. S. 40, 42, 46 S. Ct. 384, 70 L. Ed. 818, and Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U. S. 312, 316, 317, 47 S. Ct. 103, 71 L. Ed. 270, 48 A. L. R. 1102. Th......
  • Higgins v. Bd. of License Comm'rs of Quincy
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • January 28, 1941
    ...the character of the rights that may be affected. In re Wood & Henderson, 210 U.S. 246, 28 S.Ct. 621, 52 L.Ed. 1046;Missouri v. North, 271 U.S. 40, 46 S.Ct. 384, 70 L.Ed. 818;Grandview Dairy, Inc. v. Baldwin, 239 App.Div. 640, 269 N.Y.S. 116;Silverstein v. Mealey, 259 App.Div. 854, 19 N.Y.S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Gillian E. Metzger, Abortion, Equality, and Administrative Regulation
    • United States
    • Emory University School of Law Emory Law Journal No. 56-4, 2007
    • Invalid date
    ...role in regulating drugs and medical devices). 16 See, e.g., Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (1975); Missouri ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 271 U.S. 40 (1926); Kemp v. Bd. of Med. Supervisors, 46 App. D.C. 173 (D.C. Cir. 1917); Epstein v. Bd. of Regents, 65 N.E.2d 756 (N.Y. 1946). 17 See, e.g., ......
  • Are collateral sanctions premised on conduct or conviction? The case of abortion doctors.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 30 No. 5, July 2003
    • July 1, 2003
    ...but the violation of law."). 87. Id. (88.) See supra notes 90-96 and accompanying text. (89.) Missouri ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 271 U.S. 40, 42-43 (90.) See, e.g., Epstein v. Bd. of Regents, 65 N.E.2d 756 (N.Y. 1946); Mascitelli v. Bd. of Regents, 299 N.Y.S.2d 1002 (App. Div. 1969) (per cu......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT