MILLER
v.
STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS OF COLORADO ET AL.

U.S. | 1932-10-10
No. 45
287 U.S. 563 Supreme Court of the United States (1932) Positive Treatment
Cited by 10 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:

Per Curiam:

The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas (No. 1), 212 U. S. 86, 108, 111; Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273, 277, 278; Miller v. Strahl, 239 U. S. 426, 434; Omaechevarria v. Idaho, 246 U. S. 343, 348; Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U. S. 497, 501, 502, 503; Sproles v. Binford, 286 U. S. 374, 393; Lavine v. California, 286 U. S.

528. In so far as the papers whereon the appeal was allowed seek review of the ruling of the Supreme Court of Colorado upon the asserted denial of rights under the Federal Constitution by the proceedings before the State Board in this cause, not involving the validity of any statute of the State, such papers are treated as a petition for writ of certiorari (§ 237(c), Judicial Code as amended by the . Act of February 13, 1925, 43 Stat. 936, 938) and certiorari is denied.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Semler v. Or. State Bd. of Dental Exam'rs, 294 U.S. 608 (U.S. 1935)
    …9 U. S. 114, 122; Graves v. Minnesota, supra. We have held that the State may deny to corporations the right to practice, insisting upon the personal obligations of individuals (Miller v. State Board of Dental Examiners, 90 Colo. 193; 8 P. (2d) 699; 287 U. S. 563), and that it may prohibit advertising that tends to mislead the public in this respect. Dr. Bloom, Dentist, Inc. v. Cruise, 259 N. Y. 358, 363; 182 N. E. 16; 288 U. S. 588. Recognizing state power as to such matters, appellant insists that the sta…
  • England v. La. State Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs, 263 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1959)
    …raves v. Minnesota, supra, the Court has held that a state, by insisting upon the personal obligations of the individual, may deny the right to practice dentistry to corporations, Miller v. State Board of Dental Examiners of State of Colorado, 1932, 287 U.S. 563, 53 S.Ct. 6, 77 L.Ed. 496, may prohibit dentists from advertising or having any kind of publicity, Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners, 1935, 294 U.S. 608, 55 S.Ct. 570, 79 L.Ed. 1086, and may prohibit the selling of eyeglasses at any r…
  • Versiglio v. Bd. OF Dental Exam'rs OF Ala., 686 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2012)
    …e held that the state may deny to corporations the right to practice, insisting upon the personal obligations of individuals (State Board of Dental Examiners v. Miller, 90 Colo. 193, 8 P. 2d 699 [ (1932) ]; Miller v. State Board of Dental Examiners, 287 U.S. 563, 53 S.Ct. 6, 77 L.Ed. 496 [ (1932) ]), and that it may prohibit advertising that tends to mislead the public in this respect. Dr. Bloom Dentist, Inc. v. Cruise, 259 N.Y. 358, 363, 182 N.E. 16 [ (1932) ]; Id., 288 U.S. 588 [53 S.Ct. 320 (1933) ].”…

Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw