Introducing ATLASLearn more
Legal Opinion

Bedno v. Fast

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided March 3, 1959PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMartin, C. J.

The statutes involved are:

Sec. 153.10 “It shall be unlawful for any person to advertise either directly or indirectly by any means whatsoever any definite or indefinite price or credit terms on lenses, frames, complete glasses or any optometric services; to advertise in any manner that will tend to mislead or deceive the public; to solicit optometric patronage by advertising that he or some other person or group of persons possess superior qualifications or are best trained to perform the service; or to render any optometric service pursuant to such advertising.”

Sec. 153.11 “Any person not…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental ExaminersSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Kelly v. Washington Ex Rel. Foss Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
  3. Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental ExaminersOregon Supreme Court · 1934
  4. Ritholz v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1945
  5. City of Springfield v. HurstOhio Supreme Court · 1944

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State v. Interstate Blood Bank, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1974
  2. State v. Amoco Oil Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1980
  3. Kelley v. Duling Enterprises, Inc.South Dakota Supreme Court · 1969
  4. New Mexico Board of Examiners in Optometry v. RobertsNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1962
  5. (1971), Wisconsin Attorney General Reports1971

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

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

View API DocsGet API Key

Powered by the Exa API