Dr. Bloom Dentist Inc. v. Cruise

288 U.S. 588, 53 S. Ct. 320
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided January 23, 1933·No. No. 588·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

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.

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

Dr. Bloom Dentist Inc. v. Cruise, 288 U.S. 588, 53 S. Ct. 320 (1933).

288 U.S. 588 (Dr. Bloom Dentist Inc. v. Cruise) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Natalie Versiglio v. Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama
686 F.3d 1290 (Eleventh Circuit, 2012)
Wilkinson v. Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama
102 So. 3d 368 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2012)
Blass v. Weigel
85 F. Supp. 775 (D. New Jersey, 1949)
Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners
294 U.S. 608 (Supreme Court, 1935)