Legal Opinion

Berry v. Summers

Idaho Supreme Court

Decided June 9, 1955No. 8221PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SMITH, Justice.

Certain pertinent facts alleged by appellants in their amended complaint, which they proved or which respondents admitted, are hereinafter set forth.

Appellants are not dentists; they are dental mechanics or technicians. Each appellant owned and operated a dental laboratory in Idaho and had invested large sums of money therein prior to May 5, 1953, the effective date of Session Laws of 1953, ch. 105, § 1, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the 1953 amendment, and continuously thereafter to the present time.

The training of a dental mechanic or dental technician usually is by…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Meyer v. NebraskaSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. Mugler v. KansasSupreme Court of the United States · 1887
  3. Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co. v. HackettSupreme Court of the United States · 1913
  4. State v. SmithSupreme Court of Missouri · 1911
  5. Chenoweth v. State Board of Medical ExaminersSupreme Court of Colorado · 1914

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

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. Jones v. State Board of MedicineIdaho Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Berry v. KoehlerIdaho Supreme Court · 1962
  3. People Ex Rel. Chicago Dental Society v. A.A.A. Dental Laboratories, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1956
  4. United Interchange, Inc. v. SpellacySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1957
  5. West Virginia Board of Dental Examiners v. StorchWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1961

21 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