Legal Opinion

Dye v. State

Alabama Court of Appeals

Decided February 7, 1939No. 8 Div. 809PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

SAMFORD, Judge.

This cause was tried by the Court without the intervention of a jury, and presents but one. question; and that is, as to the sufficiency of the indictment.

The Statute reads: — Section 3875 of the Code of 1923—

“Any person who engages in the practice of dentistry, either as assistant or employe, or who receives any license required by law to practice dentistry, except he shall have passed the examination provided for by chapter 18, of this Code, and received the certificates as therein provided, and any person who practices dentistry in this state without having received a…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. McMillan v. State Ex Rel. BiggsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hahn v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1958
  2. Dye v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1939
  3. (1974), Wisconsin Attorney General Reports1974

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API