Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Alexander

Supreme Court of Arizona

February 9, 1948

STATE
v.
ALEXANDER

Appeal from Superior Court, Maricopa County; M. T. Phelps, Judge.

Misu Alexander was convicted of practicing dentistry without a license, and he appeals.

Judgment reversed.

Lewkowitz & Wein, of Phoenix, for appellant.

John L. Sullivan, Atty. Gen., and William P. Mahoney, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Udall, Justice. Stanford, C. J., and La Prade, J., concurring.

OPINION

Udall, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment finding the defendant (appellant) guilty of practicing dentistry without a license, a misdemeanor, and the imposition of a fine of $ 200. The trial was to the court, sitting without a jury, the case being submitted upon an agreed statement of facts.

The information was drawn and the conviction had under Section 67-903, A.C.A.1939, the pertinent portions of which read:

"Who deemed to be practicing dentistry. -- A person shall be deemed to be practicing dentistry who, * * * for fee, compensation, emolument, or reward, direct or indirect, [66 Ariz. 397] received * * * with specific reference and application to the teeth, gums, jaws, oral cavity, * * * in living persons, shall

* * *

"(h) Construct, make, alter, or repair an artificial substitute or restorative or corrective appliance;

"(i) Do any other remedial, corrective, or restorative work." (Emphasis supplied.)

Specifically, the defendant was engaged in the business of selling a product designed to make loose dental plates fit more perfectly by forming a sort of cushion above the plate. In demonstrating to his customers the proper way to apply his product there is no doubt that he came within the prohibitions of subsections (h) and (i) of the dentistry statute, supra, if, and only if this fitting service was "for fee, compensation, emolument, or reward, direct or indirect * * *", as it will be noted from a careful reading of the statute that the doing of the enumerated things is the practice of dentistry only if it is for compensation.

In determining then the only vital question before us in this appeal (whether the compensation was for the product alone or whether appellant was also being compensated for his demonstration) we must confine our review to the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.