Friedman v. Rogers

Friedman et al. v. Rogers et al.
Argued November 8, 1978
Decided February 21, 1979
Full case nameDr. N. Jay ROGERS, Plaintiff, W. J. Dickinson, Individually and as President of the Texas Senior Citizens Association, Port Arthur, Texas Chapter, Intervenor, v. Dr. E. Richard FRIEDMAN, Dr. John B. Bowen, Dr. Hugh A. Sticksel, Jr., Dr. John W. Davis, Dr. Sal Mora, Defendants, Texas Optometric Association, Inc., Intervenor.
Docket no.77-1163
Citations440 U.S. 1 (more)
ArgumentOral argument
Opinion announcementOpinion announcement
Case history
Prior438 F. Supp. 428
Holding
A Texas law prohibiting the use of a trade name within the practice of optometry and which requires that members of the State optometry board be members of a professional optometry organization is constitutional.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Potter Stewart
Byron White · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
MajorityPowell, joined by Burger, Brennan, Stewart, White, Rehnquist, Stevens, Marshall, Blackmun
Concur/dissentBlackmun, joined by Marshall
Laws applied
I Amendment, X Amendment

Friedman et al. v. Rogers et al., 440 U.S. 1 (1979) was a Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a Texas law, the Texas Optometry Act, which prohibited optometrists from using trade names for commercial purposes and which requires that 4/6 of the members of the Texas Optometry Board be members of the Texas Optometric Association is constitutional. In its decision the Supreme Court overruled the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas's ruling in that prohibition against trade name was an unnecessary and unjustified stifling of First Amendment Commercial speech. The decision further upheld a State's Tenth Amendment right to control and regulate their professional licensing boards and organizations.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ยท View on Wikipedia

Developed by Tubidy