U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 1961

Marvin Dayan, AKA Marvin Dayon v. People of the State of California

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided July 24, 1961 · Chambers, Barnes, Jertberg

293 F.2d 46; 1961 U.S. App. LEXIS 3852 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Nathan Newby, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant., Roger Arnebergh, City Atty., Philip E. Grey, Asst. City Atty., Wm E. Doran, Arthur Karma, Deputy City Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision.

Crees v. California State Board of Medical Examiners (Cal. Ct. App. 1963)
People v. Bernhardt (Cal. Ct. App. 1963)

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

PER CURIAM.

By habeas corpus, appellant Dayan, a chiropractor, makes a collateral attack on his state conviction for a violation of Section 2141 of the California Business and Professions Code. In sum, the charge was he practiced a little medicine.

We find his constitutional claims without merit. California can define the limits of its professions, and we find nothing unreasonable in the statutory classifications or the California interpretations thereof. The statute has sufficient specificity. See Collins v. Texas, 223 U.S. 288, 32 S.Ct. 286, 56 L.Ed. 439. And we find no lack of due process in the California proceedings.

All chiropractors apparently are fairly treated in California under their classification. But Dayan did not stay within it. While one comes from reading the record with some sympathy, we can find no law to help appellant.

The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.