House of $8.50 Eyeglasses, Inc. v. State Board of Optometry

261 So. 2d 27, 288 Ala. 349, 1972 Ala. LEXIS 1226
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedApril 6, 1972
Docket6 Div. 885
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 261 So. 2d 27 (House of $8.50 Eyeglasses, Inc. v. State Board of Optometry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
House of $8.50 Eyeglasses, Inc. v. State Board of Optometry, 261 So. 2d 27, 288 Ala. 349, 1972 Ala. LEXIS 1226 (Ala. 1972).

Opinion

*351 MERRILL, Justice.

This appeal is from a decree in a declaratory judgment proceeding in which a construction of the law relating to the practice of optometry was requested and an injunction against the House of $8.50 Eyeglasses, Inc. and its employed optometrists was sought.

The trial court enjoined each of the named optometrists from the unlawful practice of optometry, and enjoined the House of $8.50 Eyeglasses, Inc. from employing by any means or arrangements registered optometrists or physicians, surgeons, or oculists to examine the eyes of its customers and to prescribe eyeglasses therefor anywhere in the State of Alabama. The court also entered a declaration that the House of $8.50 Eyeglasses, Inc., in its employment of registered optometrists, physicians, surgeons or oculists to examine the eyes of its customers and to prescribe eyeglasses for them is an unauthorized and unlawful practice of the profession of optometry as defined in the laws and statutes of the State of Alabama.

The main questions raised on this appeal were answered and settled in our case of Lee Optical Company of Alabama, Inc. v. State Board of Optometry, 261 So.2d 17, decided March 30, 1972. Any collateral questions argued in the instant case such as whether the demurrer to the bill was properly overruled, are not necessary to be decided now.

On the authority of the holdings in the Lee Optical Company case, supra, the decree in the instant cause is reversed and a decree is here rendered in favor of the respondents.

Reversed and rendered.

HEFLIN, C. J., and LAWSON, HARWOOD and MADDOX, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Salvati v. Dale
364 F. Supp. 691 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1973)
Gibson v. Berryhill
411 U.S. 564 (Supreme Court, 1973)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
261 So. 2d 27, 288 Ala. 349, 1972 Ala. LEXIS 1226, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/house-of-850-eyeglasses-inc-v-state-board-of-optometry-ala-1972.