Friedman v. Rogers case brief summary
440 U.S. 1 (1979)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff optometrist and defendant optometry board sought review of a decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas sustaining the constitutionality of a state statute governing the composition of a state optometry board, but finding that the prohibition of the practice of optometry under a trade name ran afoul of the constitutional protection of free speech.
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff optometrist filed suit against defendants, the members of a state optometry board, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the enforcement of a state statute proscribing the composition of the board and prohibiting the practice of optometry under a trade name. The trial court sustained the constitutionality of the statute governing the composition of the board, but held that the prohibition of the practice of optometry under a trade name ran afoul of the constitutional protection of commercial speech.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The decision upholding a statute governing the composition of an optometry board was affirmed because it was reasonable for the state to require that a majority of the board be drawn from a professional organization. The decision finding that the prohibition of the practice of optometry under a trade name violated free speech was reversed because the state had an interest in protecting the public from deceptive trade names.
440 U.S. 1 (1979)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff optometrist and defendant optometry board sought review of a decision from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas sustaining the constitutionality of a state statute governing the composition of a state optometry board, but finding that the prohibition of the practice of optometry under a trade name ran afoul of the constitutional protection of free speech.
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff optometrist filed suit against defendants, the members of a state optometry board, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the enforcement of a state statute proscribing the composition of the board and prohibiting the practice of optometry under a trade name. The trial court sustained the constitutionality of the statute governing the composition of the board, but held that the prohibition of the practice of optometry under a trade name ran afoul of the constitutional protection of commercial speech.
DISCUSSION
- The Supreme Court found that the state's interest in protecting the public from the deceptive and misleading use of optometrical trade names was substantial and well demonstrated.
- The statute did nothing more than require that commercial information about optometric services appear in such as form as necessary to prevent its being deceptive.
- It was also reasonable for the state legislature to require that a majority of the board be drawn from a professional organization that demonstrated consistent support for the rules that the board would be responsible for enforcing.
CONCLUSION
The decision upholding a statute governing the composition of an optometry board was affirmed because it was reasonable for the state to require that a majority of the board be drawn from a professional organization. The decision finding that the prohibition of the practice of optometry under a trade name violated free speech was reversed because the state had an interest in protecting the public from deceptive trade names.
No comments:
Post a Comment