Legal Opinion

Smith v. State Board of Medical Examiners

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided February 15, 1933No. 22190PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStephens, J.

1. Although, where a statute in permissive terms provides for the performance of some act which justice or the public good requires, its terms will be construed as having an imperative significance, and the performance of the act permissively provided for is made mandatory (Birdsong v. Brooks, 7 Ga. 88; Levy v. Millman, 7 Ga. 167; Weems v. Farrell, 33 Ga. 413; Vason v. Augusta, 38 Ga. 542, 545; Georgia, Fla. & Ala. Ry. Co. v. Sasser, 130 Ga. 394, 396 (60 S. E. 997) ; Whitley v. State, 134 Ga. 758, 772 (68 S. E. 716) ), yet where a statute, in permissive terms, as by the use of the word “may,”…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Vason v. City of AugustaSupreme Court of Georgia · 1868
  2. Birdsong & Sledge v. BrooksSupreme Court of Georgia · 1849
  3. Whitley v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1910
  4. Georgia, Florida & Alabama Railway Co. v. SasserSupreme Court of Georgia · 1908
  5. Weems v. FarrellSupreme Court of Georgia · 1863

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State Board of Registration Ex Rel. Healing Arts v. FinchMissouri Court of Appeals · 1974
  2. Hardison v. FayssouxCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1983
  3. Withers v. Golding, Director Dept. of RegistrationUtah Supreme Court · 1941
  4. Prince v. Lee Proofing Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1982
  5. Longino v. HanleySupreme Court of Georgia · 1937

3 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