DANTZLER v. Callison’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently September 2006 · most notably Sloan v. South Carolina Board of Physical Therapy Examiners (2006), Dunton v. South Carolina Board of Examiners (1987)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc. · Dent v. State of West Virginia · Hawker v. People of New York · Barsky v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York · Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners v. Fife
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[The purpose of this section] is to prevent the General Assembly from being misled into the passage of bills containing provisions not indicated in their titles, and to apprise the people of the subject of the proposed legislation and thus give them the opportunity to be heard if they so desire.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]here is no reasonable doubt that the rights of those who have been duly licensed to practice medicine or other professions are property rights of value which are entitled to protection ... and that the right of a person to practice his profession for which he has prepared himself is property of the very highest quality. However, it may be observed that no person has a natural or absolute right to practice medicine, surgery, naturopathy or any of the various healing arts. It is a right granted upon condition.... A state may not prohibit the practice of medicine or surgery, yet it is very generally held that a state, under its police power, may regulate, within reasonable bounds, for the protection of the public health the practice of either by defining the qualifications which one must possess before being permitted to practice the same ... [T]he right to practice medicine is a qualified one and is held in subordination to the duty of the State under the police power to protect the public health.... No person can acquire a vested right to continue, when once licensed, in a business, trade or profession which is subject to legislative control and regulation under the police power, as regulations prescribed for such may be changed or modified by the legislature, in the public interest, without subjecting the action to the charge of interfering with contract or vested rights.... The granting of a license to practice certain professions is the method taken by the State, in the ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““* * * May we ask, after all, why should not persons who hold themselves out to be doctors, regardless of what they may otherwise profess, be required to have the training of a medical doctor ?””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hahn v. State
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.