Printable Format65-1510.
History: L. 1923, ch. 220, § 14; R.S. 1923, 65-1510; L. 1939, ch. 240, § 4; L. 1975, ch. 318, § 8; Repealed, L. 1990, ch. 223, § 22; July 1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Corporation cannot engage directly or indirectly in practice of optometry. State, ex rel., v. Goldman Jewelry Co., 142 Kan. 881, 883, 890, 51 P.2d 995.
2. Corporation ousted in quo warranto proceedings from practice of optometry. State, ex rel., v. Zale Jewelry Co., 179 Kan. 628, 298 P.2d 283.
3. Board's order revoking license upheld; rules for determination of validity stated. Marks v. Frantz, 183 Kan. 47, 51, 325 P.2d 368.
4. Cited in upholding validity of license revocation proceeding; conclusions of board supported by substantial competent evidence. Copeland v. Kansas State Board of Examiners in Optometry, 213 Kan. 741, 749, 518 P.2d 377.