Rose v. State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts
Supreme Court of Missouri
1Opinion of the Court
HIGGINS, Commissioner.
Paul H. Rose, an osteopath in Her-mann, Missouri, had his license to practice the healing arts revoked by the Respondent Board and the revocation was affirmed by the circuit court. He alleged in his petition for review and contends on this appeal that the board’s procedure under Section 334.100, V.A.M.S., violated Article I, Section 10 of the Missouri Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that the same agency both prosecuted and decided the case and such procedure deprived him of due process of law. We have jurisdiction because…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Tumey v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- In Re Murchison.Supreme Court of the United States · 1955
- Jencks v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Wong Yang Sung v. McGrathSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Amos Treat & Co., Inc. v. Securities and Exchange CommissionCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1962
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- State Board of Registration for the Healing Arts v. MastersMissouri Court of Appeals · 1974
- McCallister v. PriestSupreme Court of Missouri · 1968
- Jerry-Russell Bliss, Inc. v. Hazardous Waste Management CommissionSupreme Court of Missouri · 1985
- Artman v. State Board of Registration for the Healing ArtsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1996
- Matter of DuncanSupreme Court of Missouri · 1976
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.