State v. Robinson
Decision Date | 06 December 1913 |
Citation | 253 Mo. 271,161 S.W. 1169 |
Parties | STATE ex rel. SPRIGGS v. ROBINSON et al., State Board of Health. |
Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; G. C. Hitchcock, Judge.
Proceeding by the State, on the relation of M. Luther Spriggs, against E. F. Robinson and others, comprising the State Board of Health. From a judgment sustaining the action of the Board in suspending relator from the practice of medicine and surgery, he appeals. Reversed, and action of the Board quashed.
Appeal from the judgment of the circuit court of St. Louis city sustaining the action of the State Board of Health in suspending the appellant from the practice of medicine and surgery in this state for a period of one year. The charge upon which appellant was suspended is that he was guilty of "unprofessional and dishonorable conduct," in that he offered, or was willing, to commit a criminal abortion. Prior to October 19, 1912, appellant was engaged in the practice of medicine and surgery at Joplin, Mo., and the evidence upon which he was suspended from practice is mostly documentary, and is as follows:
First. The following advertisement inserted by appellant in a newspaper at Joplin: After this advertisement appeared, a post office inspector caused certain letters to be written and mailed to appellant from Galena, Mo., to which letters was affixed the name "Susie Davis." Said letters and the appellant's replies thereto are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morrison v. State Board of Education
......2, pp. 25--26. Prohibitions against 'unprofessional conduct' by licensees have been struck down as void for vagueness in at least four states. Moore v. Vincent (1935) 174 Okl. 339, 50 P.2d 388 (embalmers); State ex rel. Spriggs v. Robinson (1913) 253 Mo. 271, 161 S.W. 1169, 1174 ('Our learned Attorney General earnestly insists that it was impossible for the General Assembly to designate the numerous acts and things which would constitute 'dishonorable and unprofessional conduct' * * *. We are * * * unwilling to believe that the ......
-
State v. Fite
...... are limited by the preceding words, "drugs and. medicine," and refer back to the subject "practice. of . . . . medicine and surgery," so that they belong to. the same class or genus. (State v. Gallagher, 101. Ark. 593, 143 S.W. 98, 38 L. R. A., N. S., 330; State ex. rel. Spriggs v. Robinson, 153 Mo. 271, 161 S.W. 1169;. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. State (Tex.), 173. S.W. 525.). . . Where a. statute expressly forbids certain things, there is an. implication raised that it was the legislative intent to. exclude from that prohibition every other thing. ......
-
In re Rust v. Missouri Dental Board, 37048.
......(a) A license or right to practice the profession of dentistry is a valuable right which cannot be taken away without due process of law. State ex rel. Spriggs v. Robinson, 253 Mo. 271, 161 S.W. 1169; State ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 304 Mo. 607, 264 S.W. 678; Chenoweth v. State Board of ......
-
Gaddy v. State Bd. of Registration for Healing Arts
...... In turn, the meaning of the phrase 'addiction to a drug habit' largely depends upon the meaning of the word 'addiction.' . Appellant's counsel cite and rely upon State ex rel. Johnson v. Clark, 288 Mo. 659, 671, 232 S.W. 1031, 1034(2), and State ex rel. Spriggs v. Robinson, 253 Mo. 271, 284, 161 S.W. 1169, 1172(2), in which our Supreme Court said that the predecessor statute to Section 334.100 was highly penal in its nature and should be construed strictly against the Board and liberally in favor of the physician charged. But the court did not long remain of this ......