Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Dare v. Board of Medical Examiners

California Supreme Court

Decided April 7, 1943No. S. F. 16609Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

*803TRAYNOR, J.

Concurring and Dissenting. — The present case, together with Russell v. Miller, post, p. 817 [136 P.2d 318], is the latest step in the development of a new system of judicial review of the decisions of state-wide administrative boards. The earlier cases (Standard Oil Co. of California v. State Board of Equalization, 6 Cal.2d 557 [59 P. 119]; Whitten v. State Board of Optometry, 8 Cal.2d 444 [65 P.2d 1296,115 A.L.R. 1]; Drummey v. State Board of Funeral Directors, 13 Cal.2d 75 [87 P.2d 848]; McDonough v. Goodcell, 13 Cal.2d 741 [91 P.2d 1035,123 A.L.R. 1205]; Laisne v. State Board…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Crowell v. BensonSupreme Court of the United States · 1932
  2. Den Ex Dem. Murray v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1856
  3. Abelleira v. District Court of AppealCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
  4. United States v. Ju ToySupreme Court of the United States · 1905
  5. Drummey v. State Board of Funeral Directors & EmbalmersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1939

19 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