Legal Opinion
Williams v. Mack
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Decided April 1, 1938No. 31,539PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Holt, Justice.
Defendants appeal from the judgment rendered upon the pleadings.
Plaintiff is a duly licensed optometrist in this state and sued to enjoin defendants, constituting the Minnesota State Board of Optometry, from proceeding under the complaint filed with the board against plaintiff to revoke his license because of alleged unprofessional conduct. Plaintiff’s amended complaint alleges the official character of defendants, which the answer admits. Likewise, it is averred and admitted that plaintiff is a duly licensed optometrist of this state, under L. 1929, c. 420; that under that law…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Sage-Allen Co., Inc. v. WheelerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- Dvorine v. Castelberg Jewelry Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1936
- State v. Kindy Optical Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1933
- Cofman v. OusterhousNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1918
- State ex rel. Beck v. Goldman Jewelry Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1935
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- MacK v. SaarsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1963
- Isles Wellness, Inc. v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- Kay Jewelry Co. v. Board of Registration in OptometryMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- State Ex Rel. Ervin v. GoodmanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1939
- State v. Clarke Plumbing & Heating, Inc.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1952
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.