Naismith Dental Corp. v. Board of Dental Examiners
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
ELKINGTON, J.
In an appeal from a judgment denying its petition for a writ of mandate, Naismith Dental Corporation (hereafter Nai smith) attacks the constitutionality of Business and Professions Code section 1658.1 on two grounds. It is contended that the statute operates to deny Naismith, and others similarly situated, “due process” and “equal protection.”
Section 1658.1 provides: “On or after September 21, 1963, no dentist shall be granted permission for an additional place of practice, except that a dentist may be granted permission for more than one place of practice if he is in…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Ferguson v. SkrupaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- D'AMICO v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1974
- Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental ExaminersSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Brown v. MerloCalifornia Supreme Court · 1973
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Schneider v. LiggettSupreme Court of Kansas · 1978
- Gumbhir v. Kansas State Board of PharmacySupreme Court of Kansas · 1982
- Kenneally v. MEDICAL BOARD OF CA.California Court of Appeal · 1994
- Wilkinson v. Madera Community HospitalCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1983
- Rees v. Department of Real EstateCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1977
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.