Legal Opinion

Delaware Optometric Ass'n v. Sherwood

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided April 27, 1956PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Marvel, Vice Chancellor:

Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction against those activities of defendants which have to do with the fitting of contact lenses to the human eye. They contend that defendants are practicing1 optometry as that profession or occupation is defined in Chapter 21 of Title 24, Del.Ch,2 Plaintiffs concede that §2117 of Title 24 permits defendants to fill prescriptions for conventional spectacles or eyeglasses, but charge that in fitting so-called contact *509lenses to the human eye, defendants, who are admittedly not licensed to practice optometry, are encroaching on a field…

2Cases cited18 opinions

  1. Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
  2. Frost v. Corporation Comm'n of Okla.Supreme Court of the United States · 1929
  3. Dvorine v. Castelberg Jewelry Corp.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1936
  4. Ezell v. RitholzSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1938
  5. Neill v. Gimbel Bros., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Severns v. Wilmington Medical Center, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1980
  2. Spenard Action Committee v. Lot 3, Block 1, Evergreen SubdivisionAlaska Supreme Court · 1995
  3. Illinois v. City of MilwaukeeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1979
  4. People Of The State Of Illinois v. City Of MilwaukeeCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1979
  5. Delaware Optometric Association v. SherwoodCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1956

1 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