Meeker v. Scudder
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Colbert v. Coney Island, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 1954)
- Johnson v. Inslee (Wash. 2021)
- Ebenezer Society v. Minnesota State Board of Health (Minn. 1974)
- Haught v. City of Dayton (Ohio 1973)
- Tudesque v. New Mexico State Board of Barber Examiners (N.M. 1958)
- State Ex Rel. State Board of Education v. District Court of Bryan County (Okla. 1955)
- State ex rel. Rhodes v. Solether (Ohio 1955)
- State, Ex Rel. McGann v. Evatt, Tax Commr. (Ohio Ct. App. 1940)
- State Ex Rel. Hawley v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1940)
- State, Ex Rel. v. Indus. Comm. (Ohio 1937)
- State ex rel. McCale v. Industrial Commission (Ohio 1937)
- Riegel v. State Ex Rel. Weaver (Ohio Ct. App. 1926)
- State, Ex Rel. Williams v. Belpre City School District Board of Education (Ohio Ct. App. 1987)
- State, Ex Rel. Cook v. Zimpher (Ohio Ct. App. 1983)
- State Ex Rel. Marshall v. Civil Service Commission (Ohio Ct. App. 1967)
- State ex rel. Schulman v. City of Cleveland (Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court 1966)
- United Steelworkers v. Doyle (Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas 1958)
- Lo Presti v. Scott (Ohio Ct. App. 1926)
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
Epitomized Opinion
An action was brought by Meeker et al in the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton county to enjoin Scudder et al from administering the Ohio Medical Act under the recent Administrative Code, charging among other things that the defendants, especially the members of the Ohio State Medical Board, were unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious in their administration of such law, particularly against the defendants and the class they represent. All of the plaintiffs were chiropractors, and they claimed that the State Medical Board was discriminating against theml An injunction was prayed for and denied. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court. In sustaining the judgment of the lower courts, the Supreme Court in Official Syllabus, as follows:
1. “The Administrative Code, Vol. 109, Ohio Laws, p. 105 et seq., so far as it affects the Ohio State iMedieal Board, does not violate any provision of the bátate or Federal Constitution.
2. “Applicants for a license to practice any calling or profession under the laws of the State of Ohio must stand upon their individual rights and qualifications, and they must not join for the purpose of instituting a class suit to determine the unconstitutionality of an act of the General Assembly.
4. “Under Section 11271, General Code, actions against the Ohio State Medical Board and other public officers having their official places of business in Franklin county, and in no other county, can be instituted only in Franklin county.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.