# Rinaldo v. Board of Medical Examiners

> California Court of Appeal · July 3, 1928 · 93 Cal. App. 72

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3296745

## Case

- **Full name:** EUGENE J. RINALDO, Appellant, v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS Et Al., Respondents
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** July 3, 1928
- **Citations:** 93 Cal. App. 72; 268 P. 1076; 1928 Cal. App. LEXIS 730
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Houser
- **Judges:** Houser
- **Cited by:** 3 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/3296745

## Opinion text

HOUSER, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of respondent Board of Medical Examiners rendered on a petition for a writ of
certiorari
presented to the superior court for the purpose of reviewing certain proceedings before said board wherein and whereby the license of the petitioner (appellant herein) to practice medicine and surgery in this state was revoked.
With one exception, to wit: that relating to the defense of
“res judicata,”
the points presented by appellant herein for a reversal of the judgment are identical with those urged in the case of
Dyment
v.
Board of Medical Examiners, ante,
p. 65 [ 268 Pac. 1073 ], this day decided by this court. The record herein discloses the fact that all the evidence introduced before the respondent board at the hearing of the charges against the accused was hearsay and consequently inadmissible—with the legal result that the board was without jurisdiction to make the order of which complaint is made.
*73
Belying upon the authority of the said case of
Dyment
v.
Board of Medical Examiners, supra,
it is ordered that the judgment be and it is reversed.
Conrey, P. J., and York, J., concurred.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3296745. Public record. Not legal advice.