Fields v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Fields v. District of Columbia

244 A.2d 643, 1968 D.C. App. LEXIS 186

CourtDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 24, 1968

DocketNo. 4066

StatusPublished

This text of 244 A.2d 643 (Fields v. District of Columbia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District of Columbia Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fields v. District of Columbia, 244 A.2d 643, 1968 D.C. App. LEXIS 186 (D.C. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Before HOOD, Chief Judge, MYERS, Associate Judge, and QUINN (Associate Judge, Retired).

PER CURIAM:

On July 25, 1967, this court issued its opinion affirming the conviction of appellant of practicing optometry without a license. Fields v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 232 A.2d 300. Appellant then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for the allowance of an appeal.¹ On February 2, 1968, the United States Court of Appeals denied the petition but without prejudice to the filing of a petition for rehearing in this court and “presentation of amicus curiae memoranda” to this court.² Pursuant thereto, we permitted appellant to file a motion for rehearing and permitted the filing of memoranda by amici curiae both in support of and in opposition to the rehearing. A full hearing was had on the motion for rehearing with argument by counsel for both parties and also by counsel for amici curiae.

After due consideration of the motion for rehearing, the opposition thereto, the mem-oranda of amici curiae, and the oral argument of counsel, we are not persuaded that our decision was erroneous and we adhere thereto.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Before HOOD, Chief Judge, MYERS, Associate Judge, and QUINN (Associate Judge, Retired).

PER CURIAM:

On July 25, 1967, this court issued its opinion affirming the conviction of appellant of practicing optometry without a license. Fields v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 232 A.2d 300. Appellant then petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit for the allowance of an appeal.¹ On February 2, 1968, the United States Court of Appeals denied the petition but without prejudice to the filing of a petition for rehearing in this court and “presentation of amicus curiae memoranda” to this court.² Pursuant thereto, we permitted appellant to file a motion for rehearing and permitted the filing of memoranda by amici curiae both in support of and in opposition to the rehearing. A full hearing was had on the motion for rehearing with argument by counsel for both parties and also by counsel for amici curiae.

After due consideration of the motion for rehearing, the opposition thereto, the mem-oranda of amici curiae, and the oral argument of counsel, we are not persuaded that our decision was erroneous and we adhere thereto.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.2d 643, 1968 D.C. App. LEXIS 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fields-v-district-of-columbia-dc-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack