Legal Opinion

State v. Howard

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided December 13, 1932No. 41639PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtEvans, J.

The suit is brought by the state, upon relation of the Attorney-general, under the provisions of section 2519 of the Code. It is conceded by the defendant that he is practicing the healing art, and has been so practicing the same for the period of twenty-one years at Cedar Rapids. His defense is that he uses neither medicine nor surgery in such practice; that he practices a system denominated by him as “Naprapathy”. This system is said, to have been! discovered by one Oakley Smith, who is the defendant’s chief witness. It is analogous in some respects to the osteopathic and the chiropractic…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. FraySupreme Court of Iowa · 1932
  2. State v. HowardSupreme Court of Iowa · 1932
  3. Carpenter v. StateNebraska Supreme Court · 1921
  4. State v. HugheySupreme Court of Iowa · 1929

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State ex rel. Collet v. ScopelSupreme Court of Missouri · 1958
  2. Estep v. State Ex Rel. CaroSupreme Court of Florida · 1945

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

Powered by the Exa API