Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
This suit was instituted in the District Court to have an Oklahoma law declared unconstitutional and to enjoin state officials from enforcing it in that it allegedly violated various provisions of the Federal Constitution. There are indicated differences among ophthalmologists, optometrists, and opticians. The statute makes it unlawful for any person, not a licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist to fit lenses to a face or to duplicate or replace into frames lenses or other optical appliances, except upon written prescriptive authority of an Oklahoma licensed ophthalmologist or optometrist. Part of section 3 makes it unlawful 'to solicit the sale [of] frames, mountings, [or] any other optical appliances.' The District Court held invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment the portions of § 2 which make it unlawful for any person, not a licensed optometrist or ophthalmologist to fit lenses to a face or to duplicate or replace into frames lenses or other optical appliances, except upon written prescriptive authority of an Oklahoma licensed ophthalmologist or optometrist. The District Court rebelled at the notion that a State could require a prescription from an optometrist or ophthalmologist 'to take old lenses and place them in new frames and then fit the completed spectacles to the face of the eyeglass wearer.' It held that such a requirement was not 'reasonably and rationally related to the health and welfare of the people.' The court found that, through mechanical devices and ordinary skills, the optician could take a broken lens or a fragment thereof, measure its power, and reduce it to prescriptive terms. The court held that this provision of the law violated the Due Process Clause by arbitrarily interfering with the optician's right to do business. The court also held three other provisions unconstitutional.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co