Printable Format65-1503.
History: L. 1923, ch. 220, § 3; R.S. 1923, 65-1503; Repealed, L. 1975, ch. 318, § 11; July 1.
Source or Prior Law:
L. 1909, ch. 229, § 2.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Corporation cannot engage directly or indirectly in practice of optometry. State, ex rel., v. Goldman Jewelry Co., 142 Kan. 881, 884, 51 P.2d 995.
2. Board is without authority to decree forfeiture of license under K.S.A. 65-1507 for infraction hereunder. Haines v. Nickel, 195 Kan. 670, 671, 672, 674, 675, 676, 408 P.2d 626.
3. Forfeiture of certificate for alleged violation hereof; application for restoration of certificate not condition precedent to appeal. Ostler v. Nickel, 196 Kan. 477, 478, 413 P.2d 303.