Stewart v. Raab
Can I rely on this case?
Citation treatment has not been reviewed for this case. The notes below come from the citation graph and the Minnesota Revisor's amendment records, not from a review of how later courts treated this decision.
(as of 9/30/2026)
Last cited by a Minnesota appellate court in 1933, among the opinions in this site’s citation index.
Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
See our Terms of Use before relying on these notes. Report an error
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- State Ex Rel. Shenk v. State Board of Examiners (Minn. 1933)
- Frank v. South (Ky. Ct. App. 1917)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Laws 1883, ch. 125, is entitled “An act to regulate the practice of medicine in the state of Minnesota,” and the first section prescribes that every person practicing medicine in any of its departments shall possess the qualifications required by the act. To persons possessing these qualifications, certificates shall be issued by a board of examiners, and these certificates authorize the possessors to practice “medicine and surgery” in this state. The terms “practice of medicine,” in the title of the act, and “practicing medicine,” in its first section, are used in the broad and popular ■sense in which they are generally understood, applied, and, in fact, defined. One practicing medicine practices “the ait of preventing, •curing, or alleviating diseases, and remedying as far as possible the results of violence and accident.” Therapy is the treatment •of disease, and surgery is therapy of a distinctly operative hind. 'The plaintiff’s certificate, in terms, authorized him to pursue the •practice of medicine under the conditions of the act of 1883, and necessarily this included surgery. There is nothing whatever in .appellants’ point that, because surgery was not expressly mentioned in the certificate, plaintiff violated the law when performing surgical operations. The statute in question does not require a license or certificate for each department in medicine.
As the case comes up on a bill of exceptions, we cannot pass on appellants’ claim that the evidence did not justify the charge to
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.