Aaroe

Aaroe v. Crosby

Good Law
1920 Cal. App. LEXIS 324·48 Cal. App. 422·292 P. 97
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 6, 1920Civ. No. 3494.California1,436 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Nourse, J.

An alternative writ of mandate was issued out of this court on application of the petitioner requiring respondents, as members of the plumbers’ examining board of Alameda County, to show cause why they should not order an examination of petitioner as to his competency under the statute of April 6, 1917 (Stats. 1917, p. 73), entitled “An act providing• for the examination, certification and registration of plumbers, prescribing powers and duties of the state board of health in reference thereto, and penalties for a violation of - the provisions hereof.” The answer of respondents is that the act is unconstitutional for various reasons and that they are, therefore, not qualified to examine petitioner or to issue to him the license or certificate of competency required by the act.

Petitioner contends that the statute is constitutional upon the broad ground that it is an exercise of the police power of the state designed for the protection of the public health and that for this reason the alleged discriminatory features of the statute do not render it void.

[1] Generally speaking, plumbing work is so related to the public health that the legislature may, under its police power, make…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.