Ex parte Frazer
California Supreme Court
Application for discharge on writ of habeas corpus. Judgment was rendered in this case on the 1st day of October, 1878, remanding the prisoner, and a rehearing granted November 26th of the same year. The opinion originally filed was substantially the same as the one now reported. Wallace, C. J., and Ehodes, J., did not express an opinion. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
In bank, McKinstry, P. J.:
It is argued by counsel for petitioner, that the Act of April 3rd, 1876, “ to regulate the practice of medicine,” as amended in 1878, (Laws 1877-8, p. 918) is void, because a violation of the provisions of the late Constitution: “ Corporations may be formed under general laws, but shall not be created by special act.”
The second section of the act confers the exclusive power to appoint Boards of Examiners upon three medical societies, and prohibits such appointment by any other corporation, society, person, or persons. The eighth section of the amendatory act makes it…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hi-Voltage Wire Works, Inc. v. City of San JoseCalifornia Supreme Court · 2000
- City of San Francisco v. Spring Valley Water WorksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1874
- People v. NallyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1875
3Cited by19 opinions
- In Re BellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- State ex rel. Milwaukee Medical College v. ChittendenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- Bradley v. Board of Zoning AdjustmentMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
- Ex Parte GerinoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Ex parte McNultyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.