Legal Opinion
Howard Co. Jewelers v. N.J. State Bd. Optometrists
New Jersey Court of Chancery
Decided January 14, 1943No. Docket 149/289PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Complainants, Howard Co. Jewelers and A.R. Goldblatt and Co., sell commodities at retail, including eye glasses. They employ licensed optometrists and display signs at their place of business in the form of eye glasses.
The defendant, New Jersey State Board of Optometrists, was created by R.S. 45:12-1 et seq. The power which that Board may exercise with respect to the subject-matter of this complaint must be found, if it exists, in the statute.
On May 19th, 1942, the defendant Board adopted the following rule:
"7. That on any building wherein a licensed optometrist practices the profession of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- North Jersey Street Railway Co. v. Inhabitants of South OrangeNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1899
- New Yorker Staats-Zeitung v. NolanNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1918
- City of Bayonne v. Borough of North ArlingtonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1910
- Drive-To Department Stores v. NewarkNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1934
3Cited by10 opinions
- Lewiston, Greene & Monmouth Telephone Co. v. New England Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1973
- Michell v. Louisiana State Board of Optometry Exam.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1961
- Louisiana Milk Com'n v. Louisiana Com'n on Gov. Eth.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1974
- Toms River Pub. Co. v. Borough of ManasquanNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1974
- Interstate Milk Handlers v. HoffmanNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1955
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.