Graves v. Minnesota, 272 U.S. 425 (1926). · Go Syfert
Search
Graves v. Minnesota, 272 U.S. 425 (1926). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases · …every presumption ... in favor of the validity of the statute. at p. 428 ✓
269 citation events (15 in the last 25 years) across 54 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. UCB, Inc. (ca7, 2020-08-17)
Treatment trajectory · 1927 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1927 1976 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. UCB, Inc.
7th Cir. · 2020 · confidence medium
Our duty, though, is to indulge “[e]very presumption … in favor of the validity of the statute.” Graves v. Minnesota, 272 U.S. 425, 428 (1926).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. UCB, Inc.
7th Cir. · 2020 · confidence medium
Our duty, though, is to indulge “[e]very presumption … in favor of the validity of the statute.” Graves v. Minnesota, 272 U.S. 425, 428 (1926).
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. UCB, Inc.
7th Cir. · 2020 · confidence medium
Our duty, though, is to indulge “[e]very presumption … in favor of the validity of the statute.” Graves v. Minnesota, 272 U.S. 425, 428 (1926).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
SCOTUS · 2018 · confidence medium
See, e.g., Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114 (1889) (upholding medical licensing requirements); Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S. 189 (1898) (same); Collins v. Texas, 223 U. S. 288 , 297–298 (1912) (recognizing the “right of the State to adopt a policy even upon medical matters concerning which there is difference of opinion and dis- pute”); Lambert v. Yellowley, 272 U. S. 581, 596 (1926) (“[T]here is no right to practice medicine which is not subordinate to the police power of the States”); Graves v. Minnesota, 272 U. S. 425, 429 (1926) (statutes “regulating Cite as: 585 U. S. ____…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Wilkinson v. Board of Dental Examiners of Alabama
Ala. · 2012 · confidence medium
Douglas v. Noble, 261 U.S. 165 [ (1923) ]; Graves v. State of Minnesota, 272 U.S. 425, 427 [ (1926) ].
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Domenic Diiulio v. Board of Fire and Police Commissioners of the City of Northlake (2×)
7th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
As the Court stated, “clearly the fact that an applicant for a license holds a diploma from a reputable dental college has a direct and substantial relation to his qualification to practice dentistry.” Id. at 428, 47 S.Ct. at 123 (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Jerry R. England v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners (2×)
5th Cir. · 1959 · confidence medium
Plaintiffs follow through by saying that the Palmer School of Chiropractic is a “college in good standing of any sect teaching medicine or the healing art.” In two cases heavily relied upon by the appellees, Douglas v. Noble, 1923, 261 U.S. 165 , 43 S.Ct. 303 , 67 L.Ed. 590 , and Graves v. Minnesota, 1926, 272 U.S. 425 , 47 S.Ct. 122 , 71 L.Ed. 331 , the Court expressed in strong language that the state legislature may, within the limitations of reasonableness and non-arbitrariness, exercise its police statutes so as to prescribe regulations, requirements, and qualifications, for dentists …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Danskin v. San Diego Unified School District (2×)
Cal. · 1946 · confidence medium
(See Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U.S. 242, 258 [ 57 S.Ct. 732 , 81 L.Ed. 1066 ]; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 307 [ 60 S.Ct. 900 , 84 L.Ed. 1213 , 128 A.L.R. 1352 ]; Graves v. Minnesota, 272 U.S. 425, 428 [ 47 S.Ct. 122 , 71 L.Ed. 331 ]; Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 260 [ 62 S.Ct. 190 , 86 L.Ed. 192 ].) Here the Legislature has appraised the situation and has made its determination, which determination should be accorded great weight and should not be set aside by this court unless it clearly appears that it was without any foundation.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Ronald Hines v. Bud Alldredge, Jr. (3×)
5th Cir. · 2015 · signal: see also · confidence low
Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgm't Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88, 108 , 112 S.Ct. 2374 , 120 L.Ed.2d 73 (1992) (quoting Goldfarb v. Va. State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 792 , 95 S.Ct. 2004 , 44 L.Ed.2d 572 (1975)); see also Graves v. State of Minn., 272 U.S. 425, 427 , 47 S.Ct. 122 , 71 L.Ed. 331 (1926); Tex. Med.
examined Cited "see, e.g." Lash v. State (3×)
Ala. Ct. App. · 1943 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, Graves v. Minnesota, 272 U.S. 425 , 428 , 47 S.Ct. 122 , 71 L.Ed. 331 , and Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 , 666 , 667 , 668 , 669 , 45 S.Ct. 625 , 69 L.Ed. 1138 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Lash v. State (3×)
unknown court · 1943 · signal: see also · confidence low
See, also, Graves v. Minnesota, 272 U.S. 425, 428 , 47 S.Ct. 122 , 71 L.Ed. 331 , and Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666, 667, 668, 669 , 45 S.Ct. 625 , 69 L.Ed. 1138 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Graves
v.
Minnesota
320.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 22, 1926.
272 U.S. 425
1926 U.S. LEXIS 11
Mr. Russell C. Rosenquest, with whom Mr. Charles H. Graves, pro se, was on the brief, for plaintiff in error., Messrs. Clifford L. Hilton, Attorney General of Minnesota, and James E. Markham, Deputy Attorney General, were on the brief, for the State of Minnesota.
Sanford.
Cited by 105 opinions  |  Published
Mr. Justice Sanford

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case involves a single question relating to the constitutionality of the Minnesota statute regulating the practice of dentistry. Gen. Laws, 1889, c. 19, and amendments; embodied in Gen. Stats., 1923, §§ 5757-5763.

This statute prohibits the practice of dentistry by persons who have not been licensed by the board , of dental examiners. Every applicant for a license is required to present himself for examination by the board and “ produce his diploma from some dental college of good standing,” of which the board shall be the judge, with satisfactory evidence showing his good moral character. The board shall then give him an examination to test thoroughly his fitness for practice; and, if he successfully passes this, shall register him as a licensed dentist.

Graves, the plaintiff in error, had applied for a license, but had been refused an examination by.the board because he had no diploma from an accredited dental college. He was thereafter prosecuted in a municipal court for violating the statute by practicing dentistry without a license. He asserted his fitness to practice, and' interposed a challenge to the constitutional validity of the statute. This was overruled, and he was found guilty and sentenced. The judgment was affirmed by the Su[*427] preme Court of the State, 166 Minn. 496; and the case is brought here by writ of error on the constitutional question.

The specific contention is that the requirement of the statute that an applicant for a license must present a diploma from an approved dental college before he can be examined by the board — which, in effect, limits the granting of licenses to persons having diplomas from dental colleges of good standing — is unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory, and violates the due process clause and other provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It is well settled that a State may, consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment, prescribe that only persons possessing the reasonably necessary qualifications of learning and skill shall practise medicine or dentistry. Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114, 122; Douglas v. Noble, 261 U. S. 165, 167., In the Dent case this Court said: “ The power of the State to provide for the generaL welfare of its people authorizes it to prescribe all such regulations as, in its judgment, will secure or tend to secure them against the consequences of ignorance and incapacity as well ,as of deception and fraud. As one means to this end it has been the practice of different States, from time immemorial, to exact in many pursuits a certain degree of skill and learning upon which the community may confidently rely, their possession being generally ascertained upon ,an examination of parties by competent persons, or inferred from a certificate to them in the form of a diploma or license from an institution established for instruction on the subjects, scientific- and otherwise, with which such pursuits have to deal. The nature and extent of the qualifications required must depend primarily upon the judgment of the State as to their necessity.” (p.122.) .

# # In the Douglas case, which involved the constitutionality of a statute containing similar provisions to those of[*428] the Minnesota statute, the validity of the provision that only persons-having diplomas from a dental college should be eligible to examination for. a license to practice den-. ■ tistry, although not directly involved, was distinctly implied. The specific objection-there was that the statute did not state in terms the scope and character of the examination to be made by the board of examiners, and therefore conferred upon it arbitrary power to grant or withhold licenses. But in answering this contention this Court said that the provision that the applicant must be a graduate of a reputable dental school and of good moral character, clearly indicated “ the general standard of fitness and the character and scope of the examination ”; and the constitutionality of the statute was sustained, (p. 167.)

By enacting the present statute the State has determined, through its legislative body, that to safeguard properly the public health it is necessary that no one be licensed to practice dentistry who does not hold a diploma from a dental college of good, standing. That determination must be given great weight. Every presumption is to be indulged in favor of the validity of the statute. Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 661. And the case is to be considered in the light of the principle that the State is primarily the judge of regulations required in the interest of public safety and welfare, and its police statutes may only be declared unconstitutional where they are arbitrary or unreasonable attempts to exercise the authority vested in it in the public interest. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Clara City, 246 U. S. 434, 439; Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 662, 668.

Clearly the fact that an applicant for a license holds a diploma from a reputable dental, college has a direct and substantial relation to his qualification to practice dentistry. We cannot say that the State is acting arbitrarily or unreasonably when, in the exercise of its judgment, it[*429] determines that the holding of such a diploma is a. necessary qualification for the, practice of dentistry; or that the distinction made in the granting of licenses between applicants who hold such diplomas and those who do not, is a classification ydiich has no real or -substantial basis. And the constitutionality of the statute must be sustained.

This conclusion is in harmony with the decisions in other state courts involving the constitutional validity of statutes regulating the practice of medicine or dentistry which contain similar or analogous provisions, as well as with the earlier Minnesota decisions. In re Thompson, 36 Wash. 377; State v. Creditor, 44 Kans. 565; State v. Green, 112 Ind. 462; People v. Phippin, 70 Mich. 6; Ex Parte Spinney, 10 Nev. 323; State v. Vandersluis, 42 Minn. 129; State v. Graves, 161 Minn. 422. And see Hewitt v. Charier, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 353; Ex parte Whitley, 144 Cal. 167; Wert v. Clutter, 37 Ohio St. 347; Timmerman v. Morrison, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 369. And it is not in conflict with the decisions in Smith v. Texas, 233 U. S. 630, and State v. Walker, 48 Wash. 8, on which the plaintiff in error relies, which dealt’ with statutes attaching unreasonable and arbitrary requirements to the pursuit of the employments or trades of locomotive engineers and barbers. These manifestly involve very different considerations from those relating to such professions as dentistry, requiring a high degree of scientific learning.

The judgment is

Affirmed.