Legal Opinion
Somer v. Woodhouse
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided January 23, 1981No. 3735-IIPublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Pearson, A.C.J.
This case involves a constitutional and statutory challenge by Pay'N Save Corporation to the adoption by the Director of the Department of Licensing of WAC 308-26-005, which interprets the meaning of the term "direct supervision" set forth in RCW 18.34.020. We affirm the trial court's declaration of validity.
In this state, it is a gross misdemeanor to act as a dispensing optician without a license. RCW 18.34.140. Generally speaking, a dispensing optician prepares and dispenses optical wear designed to aid or correct ocular anomalies of the human eye pursuant to written…
2Cases cited27 opinions
- Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Smith v. Skagit CountyWashington Supreme Court · 1969
- Save a Valuable Environment v. City of BothellWashington Supreme Court · 1978
- Garrison v. Washington State Nursing BoardWashington Supreme Court · 1976
- State v. LeeWashington Supreme Court · 1976
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Safeco Insurance v. MeyeringWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- Children's Hospital & Medical Center v. Department of HealthCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1999
- American Network, Inc. v. Utilities & Transportation CommissionWashington Supreme Court · 1989
- Clark v. HORSE RACING COMMISSIONWashington Supreme Court · 1986
- Crown Zellerbach Corp. v. Department of Labor & IndustriesWashington Supreme Court · 1982
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.