Sparks v. Board of Dental Examiners

California Court of Appeal

Sparks v. Board of Dental Examiners

77 P.2d 233, 25 Cal. App. 2d 341, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 818

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal

DecidedMarch 15, 1938

DocketCiv. No. 2032

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 77 P.2d 233 (Sparks 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

Sparks v. Board of Dental Examiners, 77 P.2d 233, 25 Cal. App. 2d 341, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 818 (Cal. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

BARNARD, P. J.

The petitioner sought and obtained a writ of review in an effort to annul an order of the respondent board suspending his license to practice dentistry for a period of five years. After a hearing the trial court entered a judgment affirming the order of the respondent board, from which judgment this appeal was taken.

The respondent has moved to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that the writ of certiorari will not lie to review the action of this board in revoking or suspending the license of a dental practitioner for the reason that in so suspending or revoking a license to practice dentistry that board is exercising discretionary administrative functions and is not exercising judicial powers.

Under certain recent decisions we feel compelled to grant this motion to dismiss. (Standard Oil Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 6 Cal. (2d) 557 [59 Pac. (2d) 119] ; Whitten v. California State Board of Optometry, 8 Cal. (2d) 444 [342]*342[65 Pac. (2d) 1296] ; Jacobs v. Board of Dental Examiners, 24 Cal. App. (2d) 359 [75 Pac. (2d) 96]; MacCracken v. Board of Medical Examiners, 24 Cal. App. (2d) 58 [74 Pac. (2d) 289]; O’Donnell v. Board of Medical Examiners, 22 Cal. App. (2d) 80 [70 Pac. (2d) 246] ; Hartman v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners, 20 Cal. App. (2d) 76 [66 Pac. (2d) 705].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Marks, J., and Jennings, J., concurred.

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

BARNARD, P. J.

The petitioner sought and obtained a writ of review in an effort to annul an order of the respondent board suspending his license to practice dentistry for a period of five years. After a hearing the trial court entered a judgment affirming the order of the respondent board, from which judgment this appeal was taken.

The respondent has moved to dismiss this appeal upon the ground that the writ of certiorari will not lie to review the action of this board in revoking or suspending the license of a dental practitioner for the reason that in so suspending or revoking a license to practice dentistry that board is exercising discretionary administrative functions and is not exercising judicial powers.

Under certain recent decisions we feel compelled to grant this motion to dismiss. (Standard Oil Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 6 Cal. (2d) 557 [59 Pac. (2d) 119] ; Whitten v. California State Board of Optometry, 8 Cal. (2d) 444 [342]*342[65 Pac. (2d) 1296] ; Jacobs v. Board of Dental Examiners, 24 Cal. App. (2d) 359 [75 Pac. (2d) 96]; MacCracken v. Board of Medical Examiners, 24 Cal. App. (2d) 58 [74 Pac. (2d) 289]; O’Donnell v. Board of Medical Examiners, 22 Cal. App. (2d) 80 [70 Pac. (2d) 246] ; Hartman v. Board of Chiropractic Examiners, 20 Cal. App. (2d) 76 [66 Pac. (2d) 705].)

The appeal is dismissed.

Marks, J., and Jennings, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

77 P.2d 233, 25 Cal. App. 2d 341, 1938 Cal. App. LEXIS 818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sparks-v-board-of-dental-examiners-calctapp-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack