336.120. Persons exempt from operation of law. — The following persons, firms and corporations are exempt from the operation of the provisions of this chapter except the provisions of section 336.200:
(1) Physicians or surgeons of any school lawfully entitled to practice in this state;
(2) Persons, firms and corporations, not engaged in the practice of optometry, who sell eyeglasses or spectacles in a store, shop or other permanently established place of business on prescription from persons authorized under the laws of this state to practice either optometry or medicine and surgery;
(3) Persons, firms and corporations who manufacture or deal in eyeglasses or spectacles in a store, shop or other permanently established place of business, and who neither practice nor attempt to practice optometry, and who do not use a trial case, trial frame, test card other than that used by the customer or customers alone, vending machine or other mechanical means to assist the customer in selecting glasses.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases, 1963–1972 · leading case:
Ketring v. Sturges, 372 S.W.2d 104 (Mo. 1963).
Ketring v. Sturges, 372 S.W.2d 104 (Mo. 1963).
· cites it 6× “Inasmuch as the reliance here is solely upon the advertisement to show that Ketring was practicing under a name other than his own, we need not consider what effect, if any, the amendment subsequent to the Gate City case of subseetion (2) of Section 336.120 in 1947 (Laws of Mo.,…”
State Ex Inf. Danforth v. Dale Curteman, Inc., 480 S.W.2d 848 (Mo. 1972).
· cites it 3× “In this connection it is significant that our statutes make provision for one and only one classification of persons authorized to assist those empowered by § 336.”
Bresler v. Tietjen, 424 S.W.2d 65 (Mo. 1968).
· cites it 2× “Section 336.120; Ketring v. Sturges, Mo., 372 S.”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 336.120(2): 2 cases
Ketring v. Sturges, 372 S.W.2d 104 (Mo. 1963).
“Inasmuch as the reliance here is solely upon the advertisement to show that Ketring was practicing under a name other than his own, we need not consider what effect, if any, the amendment subsequent to the Gate City case of subseetion (2) of Section 336.120 in 1947 (Laws of Mo.,…”
State Ex Inf. Danforth v. Dale Curteman, Inc., 480 S.W.2d 848 (Mo. 1972).
“In this connection it is significant that our statutes make provision for one and only one classification of persons authorized to assist those empowered by § 336.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.