Ex Parte Whitley

Good Law
144 Cal. 167·1904 Cal. LEXIS 671·77 P. 879
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJuly 22, 1904Crim. No. 1115.California5,303 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Lorigan, J.

Petitioner was arrested for practicing dentistry without a license, contrary to the Dental Law of this state, and prosecutes this writ, claiming that said law is unconstitutional for several reasons.

The history of our" Dental Law is found in enactments by the legislature at its sessions in 1885, 1901, and 1903, and in order to properly appreciate the points made by petitioner, it will he necessary to refer to some of the provisions of all of these acts. The original act regulating the practice of dentistry was passed in 1885 (Stats. 1885, p. 110), and it was provided in section 1 thereof that “it shall he unlawful for any person, who is not at the time of the passage of this act engaged in the practice of dentistry in this state, to commence such practice, unless he or she shall have obtained a certificate as hereinafter provided.” Section 4 provided that “within six months from the time this act takes effect, it shall be the duty of every person who is now engaged in the practice of dentistry in this state, to cause his or her name and residence or place of business to be registered with the board of examiners.”

The act further provided for the examination by the board of…

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.