Rosenblatt v. California State Board of Pharmacy
California Court of Appeal
1DissentAdams, P. J.
I dissent. Petitioner was duly registered as an assistant pharmacist on January 14, 1939, presumably after meeting the requirements of the applicable statutes, to wit, sections 4160-4162 of the Business and Professions Code which had been in effect since 1901. (See Stats. 1901, p. 299.) Those sections required that in order to secure registration as an assistant pharmacist an applicant must have had three years of pharmaceutical experience, completed at least one-half of the course required for graduation in a school or college of pharmacy or a department of pharmacy of a university…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Laisne v. California State Board of OptometryCalifornia Supreme Court · 1942
- Riley v. ChambersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1919
- Hewitt v. Board of Medical ExaminersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1906
- City of Los Angeles v. OliverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1929
- Rosefield Packing Co. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1935
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.