Miller v. State Board of Dental Examiners

287 U.S. 563, 53 S. Ct. 6
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided October 10, 1932·No. No. 45·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The appeal herein is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas (No. 1), 212 U. S. 86, 108, 111; Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273, 277, 278; Miller v. Strahl, 239 U. S. 426, 434; Omaechevarria v. Idaho, 246 U. S. 343, 348; Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U. S. 497, 501, 502, 503; Sproles v. Binford, 286 U. S. 374, 393; Lavine v. California, 286 U. S. 528. In so far as the papers whereon the appeal was allowed seek review of the ruling of the Supreme Court of Colorado upon the asserted denial of rights under the Federal Constitution by the proceedings before the State Board in this cause, not involving the validity of any statute of the State, such papers are treated as a petition for writ of certiorari (§ 237(c), Judicial Code as amended by the . Act of February 13, 1925, 43 Stat. 936, 938) and certiorari is denied.

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

Miller v. State Board of Dental Examiners, 287 U.S. 563, 53 S. Ct. 6 (1932).

287 U.S. 563 (Miller v. State Board of Dental Examiners) — 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)
Pierce v. St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1J
944 P.2d 646 (Colorado Court of Appeals, 1997)
People v. Carroll
264 N.W. 861 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1936)
Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners
294 U.S. 608 (Supreme Court, 1935)
Dr. Bloom Dentist Inc. v. Cruise
288 U.S. 588 (Supreme Court, 1933)