In Re Gerber
California Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING on Habeas Corpus to secure release for alleged violation of Optometry Law. Petitioner discharged. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the CourtWorks, J.
Petitioner demands his release from an alleged unlawful detention pursuant to his conviction upon a charge of having violated that portion of section 1 of the Optometry Law (Stats. 1913, p. 1097) providing that no person shall engage in the practice of optometry without having first obtained a certificate of registration from the State Board of Optometry. Petitioner does not claim ever to have obtained such a certificate, but he contends that his imprisonment is unlawful because of the provisions of section 10 of the Optometry Law to the effect that the act shall not he construed “to prevent…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Aitchison v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1954
- Hall v. SteeleCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Millsap v. AldersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- Miller v. JohnsonDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1982
- Perry v. LarsonDistrict Court, S.D. Florida · 1938
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.