Matter of Dickson v. Flynn
Cases that cite this one
11 later published cases cite this decision.
- Mack v. Saars (Conn. 1963)
- People v. Sterling Optical Co. (New York Supreme Court 1960)
- Shane Harrold v. State of Indiana (Ind. Ct. App. 2012)
- New York State Optometric Ass'n v. Whelan (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1976)
- New York State Optometric Ass'n v. Whelan (New York Supreme Court 1976)
- Posner v. Rockefeller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1969)
- Sterling Optical Co. v. University of the State (New York Supreme Court 1968)
- State v. Ritholz (Minn. 1962)
- Dickstein v. Optical Service, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 1959)
- Williams v. Mack (Minn. 1938)
- People v. Dr. Scholl's Foot Comfort Shops, Inc. (N.Y. 1938)
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
The purposes for which the Four-BoroOptical Corporation is to be organized, as set forth in its certificate of incorporation, conform with the provisions of section 1432-a of the Education Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 16) (Roschen v. Ward, 279 U. S. 337), and the objection by appellant appearing in the affidavit of the acting chief of the Division of Corporations is not sufficient to *76 warrant refusal to file and record this certificate. We do not construe the wording of the proposed certificate of incorporation as authorizing the practice of optometry.
At this time we decide no other issue. If, in the future, questions relating to any violation of law by the corporation or by any optometrist employed by it shall arise, the courts can then deal with them.
The order should be affirmed, without costs.
Crane, Ch. J., O’Brien, Loughran and Rippey, JJ., concur; Hubbs, J., dissents: Lehman and Finch, JJ., taking no part.
Order affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.