Friedman v. Rogers
1979 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Friedman et al. v. Rogers et al., 440 U.S. 1 (1979) was a Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Texas law, the Texas Optometry Act, which prohibited optometrists from using trade names for commercial purposes and which requires that 4/6 of the members of the Texas Optometry Board be members of the Texas Optometric Association is constitutional. In its decision the Supreme Court overruled the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas's ruling in that prohibition against trade name was an unnecessary and unjustified stifling of First Amendment Commercial speech. The decision further upheld a State's Tenth Amendment right to control and regulate their professional licensing boards and organizations.
Quick Facts Friedman et al. v. Rogers et al., Argued November 8, 1978 Decided February 21, 1979 ...
Friedman et al. v. Rogers et al. | |
---|---|
Argued November 8, 1978 Decided February 21, 1979 | |
Full case name | Dr. N. Jay ROGERS, Plaintiff, W. J. Dickinson, Individually and as President of the Texas Senior Citizens Association, Port Arthur, Texas Chapter, Intervenor, v. Dr. E. Richard FRIEDMAN, Dr. John B. Bowen, Dr. Hugh A. Sticksel, Jr., Dr. John W. Davis, Dr. Sal Mora, Defendants, Texas Optometric Association, Inc., Intervenor. |
Docket no. | 77-1163 |
Citations | 440 U.S. 1 (more) |
Argument | Oral argument |
Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
Case history | |
Prior | 438 F. Supp. 428 |
Holding | |
A Texas law prohibiting the use of a trade name within the practice of optometry and which requires that members of the State optometry board be members of a professional optometry organization is constitutional. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Powell, joined by Burger, Brennan, Stewart, White, Rehnquist, Stevens, Marshall, Blackmun |
Concur/dissent | Blackmun, joined by Marshall |
Laws applied | |
I Amendment, X Amendment |
Close