|
|
Roschen v. Ward, 279 U.S. 337 (1929)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Roschen v. Ward, 279 U.S. 337 (1929)
Please note: this case begins in mid-page. It therefore shares a citation with the last page of the previous case. If you are attempting to follow a link to the last page of 279 U.S. 333, click here.
Roschen v. Ward Nos. 667 and 668 Argued April 10, 1929 Decided April 22, 1929 279 U.S. 337
APPEALS FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Syllabus
1. A state statute making it unlawful to sell at retail in any store or established place of business any spectacles, eyeglasses, or lenses for correction of vision unless a physician or optometrist is in charge of the place of sale and in personal attendance at it, though not providing specifically for an examination by the specialist, is valid. P. 339.
2. A statute is not invalid under the Constitution because it might have gone farther than it did, or because it may not succeed in bringing about the result that it tends to produce. P. 339.
3. It being obvious that much good will be accomplished by a statute requiring the attendance of a physician or optometrist at any place where spectacles or eyeglasses are sold at retail, the question of the expediency of such legislation is not for the courts, and no presumption will be indulged that the benefits are a pretence and a cloak for establishing a monopoly. P. 339.
29 F.2d 762 affirmed.
Appeals from decrees of the district court, three judges sitting, denying preliminary injunctions and dismissing the bills in suits to restrain state officers from enforcing a statute requiring the attendance of a physician or optometrist at places where spectacles, eyeglasses, or lenses for the correction of vision are sold at retail. The opinion below was reported sub nom. S.S. Kresge Co. v. Ottinger.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Roschen v. Ward, 279 U.S. 337 (1929) in 279 U.S. 337 279 U.S. 338. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=WMMXNAWVTHHAY7M.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Roschen v. Ward, 279 U.S. 337 (1929), in 279 U.S. 337, page 279 U.S. 338. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=WMMXNAWVTHHAY7M.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Roschen v. Ward, 279 U.S. 337 (1929). cited in 1929, 279 U.S. 337, pp.279 U.S. 338. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=WMMXNAWVTHHAY7M.
|