Legal Opinion

State Board of Optometrists v. S. S. Kresge Co.

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Decided October 9, 1935PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Pee Curiam.

The facts are fully stated, and the pertinent statutory provisions quoted, in the opinion of the Supreme Court. We concur in the view expressed by that court, that the particular sale involved in the case, and the class of sales to which it belongs, are not within the purview of the statute. The statutory definition of optometry, quoted at page 293 of 113 N. J. L., expressly rests not on sale of lenses, or similar aids to the eye, but on examination of the human eye itself by objective or subjective means, or both. Nothing savoring of an examination was made in this case; and all…

2Cited by11 opinions

  1. Prado v. StateSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2006
  2. Palkoski v. GarciaSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1955
  3. NJ Optometric Ass'n v. Hillman-Kohan Eyeglasses, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1976
  4. NJ State Bd. of Optometrists v. ReissNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1964
  5. Cyktor v. Aspen Manor Condominium Ass'nNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2003

6 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