N.C. Gen. Stat. » Chapter 90
NC General Statutes

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-249 (2026)

Powers of the Board

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Oct. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NCLEGncleg.gov (official) JustiaChapter 90 CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Board shall have the power to make rules, not inconsistent with this Article and the laws of the State of North Carolina, with respect to the following areas of the business of opticianry in North Carolina:

(1) Misrepresentation to the public.

(2) Baiting or deceptive advertising.

(3) Continuing education of licensees.

(4) Location of registrants in the State.

(5) Registration of established optical places of business, but no rule restricting type or location of a business may be enacted.

(6) Requiring photographs for purposes of identification of persons subject to this Article.

(7) Content of licensure examination and reexamination.

(8) Revocation, suspension, and reinstatement of licenses, probation, and reprimands of licensees, and other penalties.

(9) Fees within the limits of G.S. 90-246.

(10) Accreditation of schools of opticianry.

(10a) Designation of accredited colleges, universities, and coursework that satisfy the qualifications for examination pursuant to G.S. 90-240(a1).

(11) Registration and training of apprentices and interns.

(12) Licenses and examinations pursuant to G.S. 90-241.

(b) through (d) Repealed by Session Laws 1997-424, s. 5. (1951, c. 1089, s. 16; 1953, c. 1041, s. 19; 1973, c. 1331, s. 3; 1977, c. 755, s. 6; 1981, c. 600, s. 16; 1987, c. 827, s. 1; 1997-424, s. 5; 2016-117, s. 3(d).)

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1957–1979 · leading case: Wall & Ochs, Inc. v. Hicks, 469 F. Supp. 873 (E.D.N.C. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wall & Ochs, Inc. v. Hicks, 469 F. Supp. 873 (E.D.N.C. 1979). · cites it 11× “Plaintiff first alleges that N.C.G.S. §§ 90-249 and 255, and 21 N.C.A.”
In re Revocation of License of Berman, 97 S.E.2d 232 (N.C. 1957). · cites it 2× “It is clear that the Board had the right to refuse an application for a license requested by virtue of G.S. 90-242, if it appeared that the applicant had not been engaged in the practice of a dispensing optician as defined in Art.”
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.