Legal Opinion

Toebe Academy of Beauty Culture v. Kelly

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided October 10, 1941PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRosenberry, C. J.

The first question for determination is, What was before the trial court under the pleadings in this case? In its brief in this court the plaintiff alleges that because no general appeal provision is contained in ch. 159, Stats. 1939, entitled “Beauty Parlors,” nor any specific method of review provided by said chapter, that none exists. The trial court was of the view that the provision contained in sec. 160.22, Stats., applies to all proceedings before the State Board of Health.

The contention of counsel is that sec. 160.22, Stats., applies only to orders made pursuant to secs. 160.15 to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Borgnis v. Falk Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1911
  2. State ex rel. City of Augusta v. LosbyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1902
  3. Harrigan & Reid Co. v. BurtonMichigan Supreme Court · 1923
  4. State ex rel. Oaks v. BrownWisconsin Supreme Court · 1933

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Salisbury Beauty Schools v. State Board of CosmetologistsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1973
  2. State Ex Rel. Parker v. FiedlerCourt of Appeals of Wisconsin · 1993
  3. Maine Beauty Schools, Inc. v. State Board of HairdressersSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1967
  4. (1971), Wisconsin Attorney General Reports1971
  5. Philadelphia School of Beauty Culture v. State Board of Cosmetology, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1951

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API