State Ex Rel. Haag v. Harkrader

Ohio Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Haag v. Harkrader

163 N.E. 300, 118 Ohio St. 642, 118 Ohio St. (N.S.) 642, 1928 Ohio LEXIS 346

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 14, 1928

Docket20943

StatusPublished

This text of 163 N.E. 300 (State Ex Rel. Haag v. Harkrader) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Ex Rel. Haag v. Harkrader, 163 N.E. 300, 118 Ohio St. 642, 118 Ohio St. (N.S.) 642, 1928 Ohio LEXIS 346 (Ohio 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

This canse coming on to be heard upon the demurrer to the petition, was submitted on the briefs of counsel; on consideration whereof it is ordered and adjudged that said demurrer be sustained for the reason that relator does not show a compliance with Section 1323, General Code, in that he has successfully passed the examination prescribed by said section; and further that the petition does not show an abuse of discretion by the respondent Dental Board as vested in such board under Section 1324, General Code; nor does the petition show that the state of Georgia, in which relator claims to have practiced, extends the reciprocity required by Section 1324, General Code.

It appearing that no amendment can be made that will remove the disability of the failure to pass the examination provided for in Section 1323, General Code, it is ordered and adjudged that the writ of *643 mandamus prayed for be and tbe same hereby is denied.

Demurrer sustained and writ denied.

Marshall, C. J., Day, Allen, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur. ■

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

This canse coming on to be heard upon the demurrer to the petition, was submitted on the briefs of counsel; on consideration whereof it is ordered and adjudged that said demurrer be sustained for the reason that relator does not show a compliance with Section 1323, General Code, in that he has successfully passed the examination prescribed by said section; and further that the petition does not show an abuse of discretion by the respondent Dental Board as vested in such board under Section 1324, General Code; nor does the petition show that the state of Georgia, in which relator claims to have practiced, extends the reciprocity required by Section 1324, General Code.

It appearing that no amendment can be made that will remove the disability of the failure to pass the examination provided for in Section 1323, General Code, it is ordered and adjudged that the writ of *643 mandamus prayed for be and tbe same hereby is denied.

Demurrer sustained and writ denied.

Marshall, C. J., Day, Allen, Kinkade, Robinson, Jones and Matthias, JJ., concur. ■

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 N.E. 300, 118 Ohio St. 642, 118 Ohio St. (N.S.) 642, 1928 Ohio LEXIS 346, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-haag-v-harkrader-ohio-1928.