# Cuffield v. Board of Dental Examiners

> California Court of Appeal · March 13, 1936 · 12 Cal. App. 2d 446

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1167251

## Case

- **Full name:** HAROLD RICHARD CUFFIELD, Appellant, v. BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** March 13, 1936
- **Citations:** 12 Cal. App. 2d 446; 55 P.2d 522; 1936 Cal. App. LEXIS 1061
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Doran
- **Judges:** Doran
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1167251

## Opinion text

DORAN, J.
It was alleged in an accusation filed with the Board of Dental Examiners that appellant herein was licensed to practice dentistry under the name of Harold Richard Cuffield, and that, at the times specified in the accusation, he unlawfully used a certain false and assumed name, to wit, “Doctor Gordon”, in carrying on and conducting the practice of dentistry. After a hearing, the board found the! accusation to be true and suspended petitioner’s license.
A review of the proceedings of the Board of Dental | Examiners by the superior court resulted in a judgment affirming the action of the board, and it is from such judgment of the superior court that petitioner appeals'.
*447
It is claimed by appellant that the evidence received by the Board of Dental Examiners and upon which the judgment of the lower court was based was insufficient, and that therefore the board was without jurisdiction. The record reveals that several witnesses testified unequivocally in support of the accusation against appellant, which, when compared with appellant’s evidence before the board, at the most presents a conflict, and, it therefore cannot be successfully claimed that, for the want of any evidence at all, the board was without jurisdiction; the sufficiency of such evidence is not reviewable on appeal.
It is also contended by appellant that because the action of the board, in part at least, occurred on Saturday afternoon, the proceedings are invalid.
In re Heckman,
90 Cal. App. 700 [ 266 Pac. 585 ], holds, in effect, to the contrary.
The judgment is affirmed.
Houser, P. J., and York, J., concurred. .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1167251. Public record. Not legal advice.