Legal Opinion
State v. Culdice
New Mexico Supreme Court
Decided February 4, 1929No. 3319PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
BICKLEY, C. J.
By chapter 35, Laws 1919, as amended by chapter 92, Laws 1927, the Legislature provided that only licensed persons should practice dentistry. It vested the authority to license in a board of examiners consisting of. five, practicing dentists, and it required that persons desiring to practice should apply to that board and undergo examination before it. Every person of good moral character, of 21 years of age, with a diploma from' a reputable dental college, was declared eligible, and it was also provided that the board may, in it's discretion, refuse to grant…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Massachusetts v. MellonSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Board of Trade of Chicago v. OlsenSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Asplund v. HannettNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1926
- Asplund v. AlaridNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1923
- State Ex Rel. Burg v. City of AlbuquerqueNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1926
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Berry v. SummersIdaho Supreme Court · 1955
- State Ex Rel. Sanchez v. StapletonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1944
- State v. LuceroNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1944
- State Ex Rel. Davidson v. SedilloNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1929
- State v. TinsleyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1929
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.