To Regulate the Practice of Optometry in the Dist. of Columbia: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Public Health, Hospitals, and Charities...on H.R. 278 and H.R. 5238... |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 21
Page 20
... defendants- and who are in charge at the Lansburgh store , have full and exclusive control , without direction from the defendants or any of their officers or employees , in their practice of optometry . The defendants do not direct ...
... defendants- and who are in charge at the Lansburgh store , have full and exclusive control , without direction from the defendants or any of their officers or employees , in their practice of optometry . The defendants do not direct ...
Page 32
... Defendants FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUIONS OF LAW The plaintiffs , by their amended bill of complaint filed December 16 , 1936 , seek an injunction to restrain the defendant corporations from directly or indirectly engaging in the ...
... Defendants FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUIONS OF LAW The plaintiffs , by their amended bill of complaint filed December 16 , 1936 , seek an injunction to restrain the defendant corporations from directly or indirectly engaging in the ...
Page 33
... defendant , Lansburgh & Bro . , is a corporation organized under the laws of the District of Columbia , with authority to conduct a general mercantile business . For some years it has operated and now operates a department store at No ...
... defendant , Lansburgh & Bro . , is a corporation organized under the laws of the District of Columbia , with authority to conduct a general mercantile business . For some years it has operated and now operates a department store at No ...
Page 34
... defendant , Lansburgh & Bro . , desig- nated a space or location on the main floor of its store to be occupied by Buhl ... defendants do not direct them in the manner they pursue their practice nor in the kinds of prescriptions given ...
... defendant , Lansburgh & Bro . , desig- nated a space or location on the main floor of its store to be occupied by Buhl ... defendants do not direct them in the manner they pursue their practice nor in the kinds of prescriptions given ...
Page 35
... defendants , Lansburgh & Bro . and Buhl Optical Co. are not engaged in the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia contrary to the provisions of the act entitled " An Act to regulate the practice of Optometry in the District ...
... defendants , Lansburgh & Bro . and Buhl Optical Co. are not engaged in the practice of optometry in the District of Columbia contrary to the provisions of the act entitled " An Act to regulate the practice of Optometry in the District ...
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
American Optometric Association appeal applicant Association attorneys BATES believe bifocal bill Board of Examiners Board of Optometry Buhl Optical Chairman charge citizens Commissioners committee corporate practice correct court decision defendants department stores District of Columbia employed etrist examine the eyes eyeglasses fact following be inserted give Goldenberg's Haussmann HAVENNER hearing Hecht's Hutton interested jewelry stores Judge Luhring KANSTOROOM KAUFMAN Kohn KRASKIN Lansburgh & Bro legislation lens licensed to practice LYON MARSHALL matter meeting Neill Nichols ocular ophthalmoscope optical department optician optom Optometric Society optometrical departments pathology patient person physician prac practice of optometry practice optometry prescription profession professional provisions question record refracted regulate the practice requirements revoked ROSENBERG SCHULTE secretary-treasurer SHELEY SHIPE slush fund SMITH Stapsy statement TENEROWICZ testimony thing tion told WARRENFELD Washington Woodward & Lothrop yesterday
Popular passages
Page 7 - Board may modify its findings as to the facts, or make new findings, by reason of additional evidence so taken and filed, and it shall file such modified or new findings, which...
Page 7 - ... by the Supreme Court of the United States upon writ of certiorari or certification as provided in sections 239 and 240 of the Judicial Code, as amended (USC, title 28, sees. 346 and 347).
Page 7 - Board, its member, agent, or agency, there to produce evidence if so ordered, or there to give testimony touching the matter under investigation or in question; and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by said court as a contempt thereof.
Page 7 - Columbia, within the jurisdiction of which the inquiry is carried on or within the jurisdiction of which said person guilty of contumacy or refusal to obey is found or resides or transacts business, upon...
Page 7 - No objection that has not been urged before the Board, its member, agent, or agency, shall be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances.
Page 7 - Each member of the Board shall be a citizen of the United States...
Page 7 - ... and it shall file such modified or new findings, which,, if supported by evidence, shall be conclusive, and its recommendation, if any. for the modification or setting aside of its original order, with the return of such additional evidence.
Page 7 - Columbia, by filing in such court a written petition praying that the order of the Board be modified or set aside. A copy of such petition shall be forthwith served upon the Board, and thereupon the aggrieved party shall file in the court a transcript...
Page 7 - Any person who shall violate any of the provisions of this act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, for the first offense shall be fined not less than...
Page 163 - Board, and a copy of the charges, together with a notice of the time and place of hearing, shall be...