Gray v. Connecticut
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Davis v. Beeler (Tenn. 1947)
- Rosenblatt v. California State Board of Pharmacy (Cal. Ct. App. 1945)
- Butcher v. Maybury (District Court, W.D. Washington 1925)
- McCaffrey v. Couper (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1970)
- Amodei v. Nyquist (New York Supreme Court 1970)
- Wasmuth v. Allen (N.Y. 1964)
- Blass v. Weigel (District Court, D. New Jersey 1949)
- Friedman v. Markendorf (Supreme Court of the United States 1940)
- Page v. Watson (Fla. 1938)
- People Ex Rel. Dyer v. Walsh (Ill. 1931)
- Price v. Russell (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1924)
- Crampton v. O'Mara (Ind. 1923)
- Lehmann v. State Board of Public Accountancy (Ala. 1922)
- Ex parte Mode (Tex. Crim. App. 1915)
- Schusler's Appeal From County Commissioners (Conn. 1908)
- Webster v. State (Tenn. 1903)
- Hawker v. New York (Supreme Court of the United States 1898)
- Gray v. State of Connecticut (Supreme Court of the United States 1895)
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
after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.
A license to pursue any business or occupation, from the governing authority of any municipality or State, can only be
In the preparation of medicinal compounds, intoxicating liquors and even still more dangerous ingredients are often properly used; but the protecting care of the government, municipal or state, in their use, should never be relaxed beyond the bounds of absolute safety. The responsibility of the legal authority, municipal or state, cannot be stipulated or bartered away.’ Whatever provisions were prescribed by the law previous to 1890, in the use of spirituous liquors in the medicinal preparations of pharmacists, they did not prevent the subsequent exaction of further conditions which the lawful authority might deem necessary or useful.
For reasons which were deemed sufficient after 1890, by the authorities of Connecticut, the use of spirituous liquors in the preparation of pharmacists’ compounds required still further provisions than those previously existing, and it was provided that such liquors could not be subsequently used in their preparation without the pharmacist’s first procuring a druggist’s license from the county commissioners.
The'imposition by the court of a fine upon the accused for a disregard of this requirement trespassed in no way upon any' of his rights under the constitution of the State, or under the-Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution.
Judgment affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.