Humphrys v. Board of Dental Examiners

California Court of Appeal

Humphrys v. Board of Dental Examiners

262 P. 60, 87 Cal. App. 205, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 126

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedNovember 30, 1927

DocketDocket No. 3345.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 P. 60 (Humphrys 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

Humphrys v. Board of Dental Examiners, 262 P. 60, 87 Cal. App. 205, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 126 (Cal. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

THE COURT.

This is an original application for a writ of review by which the petitioner seeks to have annulled an order of the respondent board suspending his license to practice dentistry for a period of five years.

The accusation is in substance identical with that considered in Messner v. Board of Dental Examiners, ante, p. 199 [262 Pac. 58]. Both accusations relate to the same time and the same dental office and both charge that W. M. Cohn, an unlicensed person, was manager thereof. The evidence is substantially the same as in the Messner case, except that the licensed dentist referred to in that case as a witness for the prosecution testified in this case that on one occasion Cohn told him what to charge in a prospective case. This is immaterial, however, because the evidence does not show that the petitioner had any knowledge of the occurrence. (Osborne v. Baughman, 85 Cal. App. 224 [259 Pac. 70].)

The demurrer to the petition is overruled and the order suspending petitioner’s license to practice dentistry is annulled.

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

THE COURT.

This is an original application for a writ of review by which the petitioner seeks to have annulled an order of the respondent board suspending his license to practice dentistry for a period of five years.

The accusation is in substance identical with that considered in Messner v. Board of Dental Examiners, ante, p. 199 [262 Pac. 58]. Both accusations relate to the same time and the same dental office and both charge that W. M. Cohn, an unlicensed person, was manager thereof. The evidence is substantially the same as in the Messner case, except that the licensed dentist referred to in that case as a witness for the prosecution testified in this case that on one occasion Cohn told him what to charge in a prospective case. This is immaterial, however, because the evidence does not show that the petitioner had any knowledge of the occurrence. (Osborne v. Baughman, 85 Cal. App. 224 [259 Pac. 70].)

The demurrer to the petition is overruled and the order suspending petitioner’s license to practice dentistry is annulled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 P. 60, 87 Cal. App. 205, 1927 Cal. App. LEXIS 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/humphrys-v-board-of-dental-examiners-calctapp-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack