Johnson v. State

5 Citing cases

  1. Weill v. State

    250 Ala. 328 (Ala. 1948)   Cited 46 times
    In Weill v. State, 250 Ala. 328, 34 So.2d 132, this court affirmed a judgment in a quo warranto action finding that defendant was unlawfully practicing dentistry and that a statute regulating such practice was not unconstitutional.

    Wilkey v. State, 238 Ala. 121, 189 So. 198; Cummings v. State, 214 Ala. 209, 106 So. 852; Ferguson v. State, 27 Ala. App. 337, 172 So. 350, 353; Code 1940, Tit. 46, § 383; Wood Bros. v. Eicher, 231 Iowa 550, 1 N.W.2d 655; Umble v. State, 207 Ala. 508, 93 So. 531; 29 C.J. 1092, § 643. Duplication or repair of existing dentures, without use of impression or model or cast therefrom does not constitute practice of dentistry as defined by statute. Code, Tit. 46, § 83; State v. Praetorians, 226 Ala. 259, 146 So. 411; Johnson v. State, 22 Ala. App. 149, 113 So. 484. In so far as it applies to appellant's operation of a commercial dental laboratory, the statute is violative of Amendment 14 to the Constitution of the United States and Section 6 of the Constitution of Alabama. Butchers Union, c. v. Crescent City L. Co., 111 U.S. 746, 4 S.Ct. 652, 28 L.Ed. 585; Dent v. W. Va., 129 U.S. 114, 9 S.Ct. 231, 32 L.Ed. 623; Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 36 S.Ct. 7, 60 L.Ed. 131, L.R.A. 1916A, 545, Ann.Cas. 1917 B, 283; Board v. Gibbons, 238 Ala. 612, 193 So. 116; State v. Woodall, 225 Ala. 178, 142 So. 838; Montgomery v. West, 149 Ala. 311, 42 So. 1000, 9 L.R.A., N.S., 659, 123 Am.St.Rep. 33, 13 Ann.Cas. 651; Longshore v. Montgomery, 22 Ala. App. 620, 119 So. 599; 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, § 138; 33 Am.Jur. 377; Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 277, 18 L.Ed. 356; Douglas v. Noble, 261 U.S. 165, 42 S.Ct. 303, 67 L.Ed. 590; Gillette v. Tyson, 219 Ala. 511, 122 So. 830; White v. Luquire Fun. Home, 221 Ala. 440, 129 So. 84; Noel v. People, 187 Ill. 587, 58 N.

  2. State ex rel. Booth v. Beck Jewelry Enterprises, Inc.

    220 Ind. 276 (Ind. 1942)   Cited 29 times

    Considering the section as a whole we think it defines the practice of optometry substantially as it has been defined by statutes and decisions of other states and does not apply to the sale of eyeglasses as articles of merchandise. N.J. State Board Optometrists v. S.S. Kresge Co. (1934), 113 N.J.L. 287, 174 A. 353; Johnson v. State (1927), 22 Ala. App. 149, 113 So. 484; State v. Knapp (1930), 327 Mo. 24, 33 S.W.2d 891. Appellant makes much of the fact that appellees or their employees sit at a table instead of standing behind a counter and that they hand the glasses to the customers instead of 4. permitting them to select those which they will try.

  3. Wynn v. State

    23 So. 2d 398 (Ala. Crim. App. 1945)   Cited 1 times

    Defendant was entitled to the affirmative charge. Pugh v. State, 239 Ala. 329, 194 So. 810; Johnson v. State, 22 Ala. App. 149, 113 So. 484; Harper v. State, 20 Ala. App. 324, 102 So. 55; Nelson v. State, 97 Ala. 79, 12 So. 421; Thompson v. State, 228 Ala. 231, 153 So. 470; Id., 26 Ala. App. 57, 153 So. 469. Wm. N. McQueen, Acting Atty. Gen., and Frank N. Savage, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

  4. Robison v. State

    200 So. 626 (Ala. Crim. App. 1941)   Cited 17 times

    See also the case of Walsh v. Commonwealth, 224 Mass. page 39, 112 N.E. 486. This court in Johnson v. State, 22 Ala. App. 149, 113 So. 484, 485, said: "Under this evidence and other of like import this court is clearly of the opinion that the defendant did not engage in the practice of optometry as contemplated by law, nor does the evidence tend to sustain the alternative charge in the complaint that he held himself out as a practitioner of optometry.

  5. State of Missouri v. Etzenhouser

    16 S.W.2d 656 (Mo. Ct. App. 1929)   Cited 1 times

    [State v. Parsons, 124 Mo. 436, 27 S.W. 1102, 46 Am. St. Rep. 457; State v. Quinn, 170 Mo. 176, 67 S.W. 974, 70 S.W. 1117.] The only case similar to this one which has been brought to our attention, holding that the facts did not indicate a practice of optometry by the defendant, is that of Johnson v. State (Ala.), 113 So. 484. The statute involved in that case defined the practice of optometry as "the examination of the human eye for the purpose of ascertaining any departure from the normal, measuring its functional powers and adopting mechanical means for the aid thereof." In that case the acts upon which the prosecution was based were in soliciting and taking orders for eyeglasses, for which purpose it was testified in each case, "I did the fitting myself, he had samples of glasses from which I made my own selection.