Commonwealth v. Mollier

186 A. 757, 122 Pa. Super. 373, 1936 Pa. Super. LEXIS 114
Superior Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 20, 1936·No. Appeal, 139·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The judgment is affirmed on the opinion of President *377 Judge Knight of the court below. There was ample evidence to support the verdict.

Persons who desire to practice any branch of the healing art of medicine within this State, even though it does not embrace the administration of drugs, should, by this time, be able to understand that they cannot lawfully enter upon or engage in such practice until they have complied with the requirements of our statutes on the subject.

The judgment is affirmed and it is ordered that the defendant, Merri Claude Mollier, appear in the court below at such time as he may be there called and that he be committed by that court until he has complied with the sentence imposed upon him.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Commonwealth v. Mollier, 186 A. 757, 122 Pa. Super. 373, 1936 Pa. Super. LEXIS 114 (Pa. Ct. App. 1936).

186 A. 757 (Commonwealth v. Mollier) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Commonwealth ex rel. Davidson v. Rundle
27 Pa. D. & C.2d 762 (Huntingdon County Court of Common Pleas, 1962)
Palmer v. O'Hara
58 A.2d 574 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1947)
Osteopath as Medical Examiner
54 Pa. D. & C. 625 (Pennsylvania Department of Justice, 1946)
Commitments by Osteopaths
53 Pa. D. & C. 628 (Pennsylvania Department of Justice, 1945)
Osteopaths as School Physicians
47 Pa. D. & C. 500 (Pennsylvania Department of Justice, 1943)
Commonwealth v. Danis
198 A. 483 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1938)