Legal Opinion

N.H. Board C. v. Company

Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Decided November 7, 1939No. 3105PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

For the purposes of this case it may be conceded that the statute does not authorize the registration of a corporation to practice optometry. Whether or not the facts alleged in the bill constitute the practice is a matter upon which the courts have expressed diverse opinions. Under statutes and upon facts more or less similar, it has been held that the employer is practicing optometry illegally, even though the competent optometrist employed by it is fully free to exercise his own judgment in making examinations and prescribing glasses. Funk Jewelry Co. v. State,46 Ariz. 348; State v.…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. In Re DebsSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Frost v. Corporation Comm'n of Okla.Supreme Court of the United States · 1929
  3. Fitchette v. TaylorSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1934
  4. Sage-Allen Co., Inc. v. WheelerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
  5. Lawrence v. Board of Registration in MedicineMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1921

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

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Delaware Optometric Corporation v. SherwoodSupreme Court of Delaware · 1957
  2. NJ Optometric Ass'n v. Hillman-Kohan Eyeglasses, Inc.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1976
  3. New Hampshire Bankers Ass'n v. NelsonSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1973
  4. Delaware Optometric Ass'n v. SherwoodCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1956
  5. Delaware Optometric Association v. SherwoodCourt of Chancery of Delaware · 1956

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