Legal Opinion

Allen v. . Carr

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 14, 1936PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtClarkson, J.

The facts found by the court below fully set forth this controversy, and on them we think plaintiff’s application for mandamus to renew his license to practice dentistry properly denied.

Public Laws 1935, ch. 66, sec. 11, is as follows: “Any person who shall have been licensed by the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners to practice dentistry in this State who shall have retired from practice or who shall have moved from the State and shall have returned to the State, may, upon a satisfactory showing to said board of his proficiency in the profession of dentistry and his good moral…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Graves v. MinnesotaSupreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. State v. CallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1897
  3. Ewbank v. Turner.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
  4. State v. . Van DoranSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1891
  5. Barnes v. Commissioners.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1904

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. BallanceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  2. State v. . BallanceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
  3. Mebane Graded School District v. County of AlamanceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1937
  4. Brumley v. . BaxterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945
  5. Brumley v. BaxterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1945

4 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