Legal Opinion
Tain v. State Board of Chiropractic Examiners
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 22, 2005No. A106656PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
RUVOLO, J.
I
Introduction
Appellants Laurence Tain, Donald Nielsen, Robert Bitters, Stephanie Wattenberg, and Lori Prescott (appellants) hold degrees as doctors of chiropractic and are licensed to administer chiropractic treatment in California. Appellants appeal after the trial court dismissed their action against respondent State Board of Chiropractic Examiners (the Board) following the court’s grant of the Board’s motion for summary judgment.
In the underlying action, appellants challenge California Code of Regulations, title 16, section 302 (section 302), which defines the scope of…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Romer v. EvansSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
- DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1992
- Raven v. DeukmejianCalifornia Supreme Court · 1990
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Sacks v. City of OaklandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- Alameda County Taxpayers' Assn., Inc. v. City of OaklandCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2026
- Ambrose v. CoffeyDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2009
- County of Alameda v. Alameda County Taxpayers' Assn., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2024
- County of Alameda v. Alameda County Taxpayers' Assn., Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2024
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.