Citation network
Douglas Vs. Noble
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Feb 19, 1923
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 165 (1923) U.S. Supreme Court Douglas v. NobleSearch
-
U.S. 165 (1923) Douglas v. NobleSearch
-
prescribe that only persons possessing the reasonably necessary qualifications shall practice dentistry, Dent v. WestSearch
-
Fourteenth Amendment. The district court held the act void on that ground, and issued a permanent injunction. Noble v. DouglasSearch
-
is a question of state law. Since the case is here on appeal from a federal court, we must consider it. Darvis v. WallaceSearch
-
upon such questions, we follow applicable decisions of the highest court of the state. Fallbrook Irrigation District v. BradleySearch
-
would render it void, unless compelled to do so by unequivocal language in the act. Knights Templars' Indemnity Co. v. JarmanSearch
-
Oil Co. v. NorthSearch
-
conducting the examination -- these are matters appropriately committed to an administrative board. Mutual Film Corp. v. OhioSearch
-
as well as the functions of determining whether the applicant complies with the detailed standard of fitness. Reetz v. MichiganSearch
-
presumed that powers conferred upon the administrative boards will be exercised arbitrarily, is settled by Lieberman v. VanSearch
-
de Carr, 199 U. S. 552 . Appellees relied upon Yick Wo v. HopkinsSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
There, the licensing board habitually exercised its power arbitrarily, and discrimination was practiced. Seattle v. GibsonSearch
-
Wash. 425, and State ex rel. Makris v. PierceSearch
-
to the examining board of the power to ascertain and fix the essentials of fitness is wholly a state question. Welch v. SwaseySearch
-
Smith v. DentalSearch
-
Brown v. BoardSearch
-
State v. LittooySearch
-
Thompson v. StateSearch
-
Brown v. StateSearch
-
Wash.195. See also State v. BrownSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Douglas v. NobleSearch
-
Dent v. WestSearch
-
Noble v. DouglasSearch
-
Darvis v. WallaceSearch
-
Fallbrook Irrigation District v. BradleySearch
-
Knights Templars' Indemnity Co. v. JarmanSearch
-
Mutual Film Corp. v. OhioSearch
-
Reetz v. MichiganSearch
-
Lieberman v. VanSearch
-
Seattle v. GibsonSearch
-
Makris v. PierceSearch
-
Smith v. DentalSearch
-
Brown v. BoardSearch
-
Thompson v. StateSearch
-
State v. BrownSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial