Legal Opinion
Matter of Dr. Bloom Dentist, Inc. v. Cruise
New York Court of Appeals
Decided July 19, 1932PublishedCited by 36 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtO’Brien, J.
The petition and the opposing affidavit both allege that respondent, which operates as a dentist, is a corporation. By judicial dictum, a corporation may not practice dentistry (Hannon v. Siegel-Cooper Co., 167 N. Y. 244, 246; Matter of Co-Operative Law Co., 198 N. Y. 479, 484), but the more recent legislative assumption seems to be the opposite (Education Law, Cons. Laws, ch. 16, § 1313, subd. B-4). The allegation that petitioner was duly incorporated to engage in the practice of dentistry prior to January 1, 1916, is not denied. For the purpose of this appeal, therefore, petitioner may be…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Dent v. West VirginiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Douglas v. NobleSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
- Matter of Co-Operative Law Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1910
- Graves v. MinnesotaSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Hannon v. . Siegel-Cooper Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1901
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by36 opinions
- Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental ExaminersSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Matter of Marburg v. ColeNew York Court of Appeals · 1941
- People v. GoodmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1972
- Matter of Monument Garage Corp. v. LevyNew York Court of Appeals · 1935
- Webster v. Board of Dental ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.