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. Gee

Supreme Court of Arizona

October 29, 1951

STATE
v.
GEE

Fred O. Wilson, Atty. Gen., Earl Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff.

Shortridge & Caruthers, of Phoenix, for defendant.

Stanford, Justice. Udall, C. J., and Phelps, De Concini and La Prade, JJ., concur.

OPINION

Stanford, Justice.

Page 1030

[73 Ariz. 49] This case has been certified to us by the Honorable Dudley W. Windes, Judge of the Superior Court of Maricopa County, under provisions of section 44-2401, A.C.A.1939.

An information filed against defendant charged in one count that he practiced chiropractic without having first obtained a license to so do from the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners, and the second count charged him with the crime of practicing healing without a valid certificate in basic sciences.

The facts in the case were stipulated between the state and defendant. The following stipulated facts are pertinent: (1) Defendant took the basic science examination but failed to pass; (2) defendant took the examination given by the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners and passed but was not issued a license because he had failed to pass the basic science examination; and (3) later defendant did commence the practice of chiropractic without the proper certificate and license.

Defendant moved to quash the information on the grounds that the Basic Science Act is unconstitutional.

Before further action on the case, the superior court in its order of certification, asked this court for a determination of the following questions:

"(1) Is Article 2, Chapter 67, A.C.A.1939, unconstitutional as an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the Arizona State Board of Examiners in the Basic Sciences?

"(2) If the answer to the above question is 'No', is Article 2, Chapter 67, A.C.A.1939 unconstitutional against persons wishing to practice chiropractic in the State of [73 Ariz. 50] Arizona as in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and in violation of paragraph 3, Article 2 of the Constitution of the State of Arizona?

"(3) Is Article 2, Chapter 67, A.C.A.1939 unconstitutional as against persons wishing to practice chiropractic in the State of Arizona as in violation of Article 4, paragraph 19, point 13 of the Constitution of the State of Arizona which states that 'No local or special laws shall be enacted in any of the following causes, that is to say; * * * 13. Granting to any corporation, association, or individual, any special or exclusive privileges, immunities, or franchises'?

"(4) Is Article 2, Chapter 67, A.C.A.1939, unconstitutional as being so ambiguous, indefinite, and contradictory in its terms as to make impossible its intelligent ...


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.