Opinion

State Board of Medical Examiners v. Dussinger

  • 9 N.J. Misc. 423
  • 154 A. 325
  • 1931 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 368
Court
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Filed
Apr 9, 1931
Status
Published
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 52.4%

The opinion

Per Curiam.

The writ of certiorari in this case brings up for review a determination of the Eirst District Court of the city of Newark, that the defendant had not violated section 10 of an act to regulate the practice of medicine. Pamph. L. 1894, p. 454, as amended.

The District Court judge found that there were no electrical treatments given. The signs displayed indicated that the place was a gymnasium where baths and massage were given. The devices employed were baths, heat, massage and an electrical vibrator, together with heat from a sun ray lamp.

After carefully examining the whole record, we reach the conclusion that the evidence supports the findings of the court below.

The writ will, therefore, be dismissed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.