The opinion of the court' was delivered by Hehek, J. The primary question here is the constitutional sufficiency of certain provisions of the act regulating the practice of optometry, as amended by ch. 350 of the Session Laws of 1948. B. S. 45 :12-1 et seq.; P. L. 1948, p. 1401. The proceeding was i…
Read the full opinion (source) ↗
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.