Cuffield v. Board of Dental Examiners

California Court of Appeal

Cuffield v. Board of Dental Examiners

55 P.2d 522, 12 Cal. App. 2d 446, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 1061

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 13, 1936

DocketCiv. 9196

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 55 P.2d 522 (Cuffield v. Board of Dental Examiners) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cuffield v. Board of Dental Examiners, 55 P.2d 522, 12 Cal. App. 2d 446, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 1061 (Cal. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

DORAN, J.

It was alleged in an accusation filed with the Board of Dental Examiners that appellant herein was licensed to practice dentistry under the name of Harold Richard Cuffield, and that, at the times specified in the accusation, he unlawfully used a certain false and assumed name, to wit, “Doctor Gordon”, in carrying on and conducting the practice of dentistry. After a hearing, the board found the! accusation to be true and suspended petitioner’s license.

A review of the proceedings of the Board of Dental | Examiners by the superior court resulted in a judgment affirming the action of the board, and it is from such judgment of the superior court that petitioner appeals'.

*447 It is claimed by appellant that the evidence received by the Board of Dental Examiners and upon which the judgment of the lower court was based was insufficient, and that therefore the board was without jurisdiction. The record reveals that several witnesses testified unequivocally in support of the accusation against appellant, which, when compared with appellant’s evidence before the board, at the most presents a conflict, and, it therefore cannot be successfully claimed that, for the want of any evidence at all, the board was without jurisdiction; the sufficiency of such evidence is not reviewable on appeal.

It is also contended by appellant that because the action of the board, in part at least, occurred on Saturday afternoon, the proceedings are invalid. In re Heckman, 90 Cal. App. 700 [266 Pac. 585], holds, in effect, to the contrary.

The judgment is affirmed.

Houser, P. J., and York, J., concurred. .

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

DORAN, J.

It was alleged in an accusation filed with the Board of Dental Examiners that appellant herein was licensed to practice dentistry under the name of Harold Richard Cuffield, and that, at the times specified in the accusation, he unlawfully used a certain false and assumed name, to wit, “Doctor Gordon”, in carrying on and conducting the practice of dentistry. After a hearing, the board found the! accusation to be true and suspended petitioner’s license.

A review of the proceedings of the Board of Dental | Examiners by the superior court resulted in a judgment affirming the action of the board, and it is from such judgment of the superior court that petitioner appeals'.

*447 It is claimed by appellant that the evidence received by the Board of Dental Examiners and upon which the judgment of the lower court was based was insufficient, and that therefore the board was without jurisdiction. The record reveals that several witnesses testified unequivocally in support of the accusation against appellant, which, when compared with appellant’s evidence before the board, at the most presents a conflict, and, it therefore cannot be successfully claimed that, for the want of any evidence at all, the board was without jurisdiction; the sufficiency of such evidence is not reviewable on appeal.

It is also contended by appellant that because the action of the board, in part at least, occurred on Saturday afternoon, the proceedings are invalid. In re Heckman, 90 Cal. App. 700 [266 Pac. 585], holds, in effect, to the contrary.

The judgment is affirmed.

Houser, P. J., and York, J., concurred. .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 P.2d 522, 12 Cal. App. 2d 446, 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 1061, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cuffield-v-board-of-dental-examiners-calctapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack