Legal Opinion
Commonwealth v. S. S. Kresge Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided May 27, 1929PublishedCited by 71 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRugg, C.J.
The several counts in the indictment charged that the defendant, not being lawfully authorized to practise optometry, (1) held itself out as a practitioner of optometry, (2) practised optometry, (3) attempted to practise optometry, and (4) sold eyeglasses for the purpose of correcting defective vision. Trial by jury was waived and the case submitted on an agreed statement of facts. These in substance are that the defendant for many years and at the time alleged maintained in Boston a place of business where it engaged in the sale and distribution of general merchandise according to the…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
- Duplex Printing Press Co. v. DeeringSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Truax v. CorriganSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n of Cal.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Adair v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by71 opinions
- Hanlon v. RollinsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1934
- Commonwealth v. WeloskyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1931
- Pendergast v. Board of AppealsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1954
- Druzik v. Board of Health of HaverhillMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
- Kneeland v. EmertonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
66 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.