Printable Format65-1504.
History: L. 1923, ch. 220, § 8; R.S. 1923, 65-1504; L. 1939, ch. 240, § 1; L. 1975, ch. 318, § 2; Repealed, L. 1990, ch. 223, § 22; July 1.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, 884, 51 P.2d 995.
2. Chapter 74, article 15 and chapter 65, article 15 construed as single act. Marks v. Frantz, 179 Kan. 638, 643, 644, 298 P.2d 316.
3. Subsection (i) not unconstitutional as unlawful delegation of legislative power. Marks v. Frantz, 179 Kan. 638, 643, 645, 646, 647, 298 P.2d 316.
4. Order revoking license upheld; rules for determination of legality of order stated. Marks v. Frantz, 183 Kan. 47, 48, 50, 325 P.2d 368.
5. Cited; board without authority to decree forfeiture of license. Haines v. Nickel, 195 Kan. 670, 675, 408 P.2d 626.
6. 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.