State of Nebraska Department of Health v. Jeffrey
case brief
525 N.W.2d 193
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
CASE SYNOPSIS: Defendant,
an unlicensed practitioner, appealed an order of the District Court
for Lancaster County (Nebraska), which enjoined him from engaging in
the business of equine dentistry. The district court held that equine
dentistry was an integral part of the practice of veterinary medicine
under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 71-1,155 (1990).
FACTS: The practitioner had engaged in dentistry for horses for nine years. After he injured one horse, plaintiff State brought an action against him for practicing veterinary medicine without a license. The practitioner alleged that the licensing statutes were unconstitutional. The court disagreed and affirmed the injunction. The court found that (1) the practitioner was engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine; (2) equine dentistry was not exempt from regulation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 71-1,155(6); (3) the licensing statutes were rationally related to an important State interest in protecting animals and their owners; (4) Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 71-1,154 and 71-1,155 were not vague, as his conduct was clearly proscribed, nor were they overbroad, because they did not reach constitutionally protected conduct; (5) the Nebraska Veterinary Practice Act provided for injunctive relief; and (6) the order of the district court was clear in its wording.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the order enjoining the practitioner from engaging in equine dentistry without a license.
FACTS: The practitioner had engaged in dentistry for horses for nine years. After he injured one horse, plaintiff State brought an action against him for practicing veterinary medicine without a license. The practitioner alleged that the licensing statutes were unconstitutional. The court disagreed and affirmed the injunction. The court found that (1) the practitioner was engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine; (2) equine dentistry was not exempt from regulation under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 71-1,155(6); (3) the licensing statutes were rationally related to an important State interest in protecting animals and their owners; (4) Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 71-1,154 and 71-1,155 were not vague, as his conduct was clearly proscribed, nor were they overbroad, because they did not reach constitutionally protected conduct; (5) the Nebraska Veterinary Practice Act provided for injunctive relief; and (6) the order of the district court was clear in its wording.
CONCLUSION: The court affirmed the order enjoining the practitioner from engaging in equine dentistry without a license.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment