State Ex Rel. Ervin v. Goodman
Supreme Court of Minnesota
1Opinion of the Court
Peterson, Justice.
The complaint charges defendants, who are copartners in the jewelry business, with unlawfully practicing optometry. They are not licensed as optometrists but are engaged in the business of selling at retail eyeglasses for the correction of vision. One L. L. Williams, a duly licensed optometrist, is employed by defendants to conduct the optometrie business under his exclusive charge, supervision, and control. He does everything in connection with the business usually done by optometrists, including eye examinations, prescribing eyeglasses, having the prescriptions filled by…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Roschen v. WardSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
- McNaughton v. JohnsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
- Neill v. Gimbel Bros., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
- Seifert v. Buhl Optical Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1936
- State Ex Rel. Bricker v. Buhl Optical Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1936
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Ritholz v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Virginia · 1945
- Commonwealth v. FerrisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1940
- City of St. Louis Park v. KingSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1956
- Isles Wellness, Inc. v. Progressive Northern Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 2005
- State Ex Rel. Sisemore v. Standard Optical Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1947
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.