# State Ex Rel. Medical Licensing Board v. Brady

> Indiana Court of Appeals · April 28, 1986 · 492 N.E.2d 34

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9709816

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Indiana and State of Indiana Ex Rel. MEDICAL LICENSING BOARD of INDIANA, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kevin BRADY, Individually and Doing Business as All American Tattoo, an Unincorporated Indiana Business, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** April 28, 1986
- **Citations:** 492 N.E.2d 34; 1986 Ind. App. LEXIS 2534
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Robertson
- **Judges:** Ratliff, Neal, Robertson
- **Cited by:** 6 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/9709816

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding courts presented with the issue have found that the process of tattooing is neither speech nor even symbolic speech

## Opinion text

ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge,
dissent ing.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
It is only where a statute is ambiguous or more than one construction is possible that the reviewing court will construe that statute. Johnson v. LaPorte Bank & Trust Co., (1984) Ind.App., 470 N.E.2d 350 . Where a statute is clear and unambiguous, the court on review has the duty to give effect to the plain meaning of that statute. Indiana Collectors v. Conrad, (1984) Ind.App., 466 N.E.2d 768 . As applicable to the facts of this case the clear and unambiguous language of IND. CODE 25-22.5-1.-1(a)(1), in defining the practice of medicine, requires tattocing to be accompained with a specific intent.
*40 I am of the opinion that the trial court's judgment 1 correctly applied the statute in question.
The judgment should be affirmed.
. Counsel for appellant was remiss in failing to include a verbatim statement of the judgment in the brief. A.P. 8.3(A)(4). Flagrant violation of the rules may cause an appeal to be dismissed. See: Begley v. Begley, (1982) Ind.App., 434 N.E.2d 125 at 127 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9709816. Public record. Not legal advice.