DR. BLOOM DENTIST INC.
v.
CRUISE, CITY CLERK

U.S. | 1933-01-23
No. 588
288 U.S. 588 Supreme Court of the United States (1933) Negative Treatment
Cited by 4 cases
Per_curiam
Per Curiam:

Appeal from the Supreme Court of New York.

Per Curiam:

The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114; Douglas v. Noble, 261 U. S. 165; Missouri ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 271 U. S. 40, 43; Graves v. Minnesota, 272 U. S. 425, 428; Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U. S. 581, 596; People v. Painless Parker Dentist, 85 Colo. 304, 280 U. S. 566; Miller v. State Board of Dental Examiners, 90 Colo. 193; 8 P. (2d) 699; 287 U. S. 563.

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)
    …ach. [*611] We find no basis for the charge of an unconstitutional discrimination. Watson v. Maryland, 218 U. S. 173, 179; Miller v. Wilson, 236 U. S. 373, 384; Missouri ex rel. Hurwitz v. North, 271 U. S. 40, 43; Dr. Bloom, Dentist, Inc. v. Cruise, 288 U. S. 588. The question is whether the challenged restrictions amount to an arbitrary interference with liberty and property and thus violate the requirement of due process of law. That the State may regulate the practice of dentistry, prescribing the qualif…
    1 / 2
  • Versiglio v. Bd. OF Dental Exam'rs OF Ala., 686 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2012)
    …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) ].” Section 34-9-2, Ala.Code 1975, provides: “(a) The Legislature hereby declares that the practice of dentistry and the practice of dental hygiene affect the public health, safety, and welfare and should be subject to regulati…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw