Legal Opinion · Dissent

Arneson v. Fox

California Supreme Court

Decided December 1, 1980No. L.A. 31259Published

1DissentBird, C. J.

I respectfully dissent. Since Justice Howard Wiener of the Court of Appeal set forth a thoughtful analysis with which I agree, I herewith publish his opinion in pertinent part:

The right to practice a profession is a fundamental right protected by the due process clause of the state and federal Constitutions. (5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1974) Constitutional Law, § 273, p. 3563; Brecheen v. Riley (1921) 187 Cal. 121, 124-125 [200 P. 1042].) A person may be barred from practicing a lawful profession only for reasons relating to his fitness or competence to practice that profession.…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Teitelbaum Furs, Inc. v. Dominion Ins. Co., Ltd.California Supreme Court · 1962
  2. Morrison v. State Board of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 1969
  3. Yakov v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1968
  4. In Re HallinanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1954
  5. Perrine v. Municipal CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API