State v. Vandersluis
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Defendant was prosecuted in the municipal court of St. Paul on a complaint charging him with practising dentistry by treating the teeth of one Brannon, in that city, on September 2, 1889, without having complied with the statutory requirements.
Read the full summary
Defendant was prosecuted in the municipal court of St. Paul on a complaint charging him with practising dentistry by treating the teeth of one Brannon, in that city, on September 2, 1889, without having complied with the statutory requirements. It was admitted that the facts were as stated in the complaint, and also that at the time of the offence charged the defendant was a bona fide student of dentistry, pursuing clinical advantages under the direct supervision of a preceptor and licensed dentist in that city, and had, as such student, so practised dentistry in the office of such preceptor…
1Opinion of the CourtGileillan, C. J.
That the legislature may prescribe such reasonable conditions upon the right to practise medicine or law as will exclude from the practice those who are unfitted for it, is so well settled by decisions of the courts as to be no longer an open question. The power rests on the right to protect the public against the injurious consequences likely to result from allowing persons to practise those professions who do not possess the special qualifications essential to enable the practitioner to practise the profession with safety to those who employ him. The same reasons apply with equal force to…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Ex parte SpinneyNevada Supreme Court · 1875
3Cited by28 opinions
- State ex rel. Milwaukee Medical College v. ChittendenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- Graves v. MinnesotaSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
- State ex rel. Kellogg v. CurrensWisconsin Supreme Court · 1901
- Ex Parte WhitleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1904
- Ex parte LucasSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.