Legal Opinion
Aitchison v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided August 6, 1953No. 1360PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CAYTON, Chief Judge.
Appellant was charged with having violated the Healing Arts Practice Act, Code 1951, 2-101 et seq. Two informations were lodged against him charging that he had “examined, prescribed for and treated” two different named individuals “in anticipation of a fee, gift or reward, without first having obtained a license so to do from the Commission on Licensure for the District of Columbia.” The two charges were tried together before a jury which found’ him guilty. From the sentence which followed he has brought this appeal.
We first consider appellant’s claim that the trial court…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Sorrells v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
- Villaroman v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1950
- Cratty v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1947
- Cavalier v. WeinsteinDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1951
- Sherman v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1944
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Alva Owen Hawkins v. Honorable Joseph R. Moss, Chief JusticeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1974
- Fales v. Commission on Licensure to Practice the Healing ArtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1971