1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Md.
  4. 300 Md.
  5. 300 Md. 466 (1984)
 

BD. OF EXAMINERS IN OPTOMETRY v. SPITZ

No. 26, September Term, 1983.

300 Md. 466 (1984)

479 A.2d 363

BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN OPTOMETRY ET AL. v. RICHARD SPITZ, JR.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

August 20, 1984.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Susan K. Gauvey, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore (Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen. and Jack C. Tranter, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.

Gary I. Strausberg and M. Albert Figinski, Baltimore (Melnicove, Kaufman, Weiner & Smouse, P.A., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, DAVIDSON, RODOWSKY and COUCH, JJ.

COLE, Judge.

The basic question we are asked to decide in this case is whether the activities of an optician in fitting contact lenses constitute the practice of optometry and is therefore prohibited by statute in this State.

The issue arose as a result of a suit for declaratory and injunctive relief filed by the Board of Examiners in Optometry of the State of Maryland and Arthur A. Marshall, Jr., the State's Attorney for Prince George's County (hereinafter...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases