Cannabis Indica

How this document has been cited

The court soon extended this rule to optometry, holding that "the practice of the [optometry] profession is limited to individuals, and that corporations cannot be chartered to engage therein."
Hence he cannot properly act in the practice of his vocation as an agent of a corporation or business partnership whose interests in the very nature of the case are commercial in character.
- in Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Hyman, 2000 and 3 similar citations
Under statutes and upon facts more or less similar, it has been held that the employer is practicing optometry illegally, even though the competent optometrist employed by it is fully free to exercise his own judgment in making examinations and prescribing glasses.
—the Jewelry Company originally employed a licensed optometrist in connection with its optical dispensary, but after protest was made, the defendant company changed its method of doing business and rented to Jacobs, a licensed optometrist, space in its store.
While corporations do in fact furnish medical care in every state, the courts of only a small minority of the jurisdictions have openly approved of the corporate practice of medicine.
- in Choosing A Form Of Business Organization and one similar citation
—optometry is a learned profession and that sound public policy forbids its "commercialization", is supported by some authority, a proper analysis, such as that in this and the few companion cases representing the minority rule, shows the fallacy of that contention by pointing out that optometry is a mechanical art, and empirical rather than learned.
In the first place, the state charged the defendant was practicing optometry at its place of business, which it was not licensed to do, and which a corporation could not be licensed to do
- in STATE, EX REL., v. Zale Jewelry Co., 1956 and one similar citation
In such decisions there is absent a statute such as § 148.56, which requires the presence of an optometrist in the dispensing establishment of the optician.
- in State v. Ritholz, 1962 and one similar citation
In Goldman, we said: "It is our judgment that under our statutes, the legislature, having in mind the protection of eyesight is just as important as the protection of property rights and advice thereon, as the protection of the teeth, as the protection against improper and unauthorized methods of healing, by the enactment of the statutes with reference to optometry recognized …
Most of the cases which have held illegal the corporate employment of persons licensed to practice optometry are based on more restrictive statutory provisions than ours.
- in Mack v. Saars, 1963 and one similar citation

Cited by

425 P. 3d 1253 - Kan: Supreme Court 2018
869 P. 2d 606 - Kan: Supreme Court 1994
57 So. 2d 726 - Miss: Supreme Court 1952
811 P. 2d 860 - Kan: Supreme Court 1991
452 P. 2d 21 - Colo: Supreme Court 1969
115 NW 2d 743 - Minn: Supreme Court 1962
287 SW 2d 190 - Tex: Court of Civil Appeals, 4th Dist. 1956

Leave a Reply