Legal Opinion

Commonwealth v. State Board of Physical Therapy

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided April 20, 1999PublishedCited by 22 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

FLAHERTY, Chief Justice.

This appeal tests the constitutionality of a statutory provision that prevents chiropractors from advertising that they perform “physical therapy.” The appellant chiropractors, Thomas A. Boch, Howard A. Bloom, Mark W. Bloom, and Ronald A. Cologna, and Weathervane Chiropractic, P.C., were charged with unlawful advertising under the Physical Therapy Practice Act (PT Act), 63 P.S. § 1304(a), (b.l). The charges were initiated by the Commonwealth’s Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs via an order to show cause why the State Board of Physical…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical ExaminersSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  3. 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode IslandSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  4. Florida Bar v. Went for It, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1995
  5. United States v. Edge Broadcasting Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993

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

3Cited by22 opinions

  1. Pap's A.M. v. City of ErieSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Adams Outdoor Adv., Lp. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Smithfield TownshipCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  3. Uniontown Newspapers, Inc. v. RobertsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  4. DePaul v. CommonwealthSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  5. Kleese v. Pennsylvania State Board of Funeral DirectorsCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1999

17 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