Legal Opinion

State Upon the Information of McKittrick v. Gate City Optical Co.

Supreme Court of Missouri

Decided October 2, 1936PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HAYS, J.-

This is a quo warrant a proceeding brought upon the information of the Attorney General. The information alleged that respondents are engaging in the “practice of optometry” and doing an “optometry business” without license, without authority by virtue of their corporate powers but in abuse thereof, and in violation of the statutes of the State'of Missouri. Issue was joined; a commissioner appointed, who heard and reported the evidence, and to his report no exception was taken.

Respondents in answer to the above contention' allege that, by employing registered optometrists to fit and…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Roschen v. WardSupreme Court of the United States · 1929
  2. Clark v. Kansas City, St. Louis & Chicago RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
  3. State v. Kindy Optical Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1933
  4. State ex rel. Beck v. Goldman Jewelry Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1935
  5. Kino v. Phoenix InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. McMurdo v. GetterMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1937
  2. Neill v. Gimbel Bros., Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1938
  3. MacK v. SaarsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1963
  4. State Ex Rel. Attorney General v. Gus Blass Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1937
  5. State Ex Rel. Standard Optical Co. v. Superior CourtWashington Supreme Court · 1943

14 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