Source: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/411/564/case.html
Timestamp: 2014-03-09 15:56:22
Document Index: 142957931

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 210', '§ 211', '§ 210', '§ 211', '§ 206', '§ 210', '§ 211']

Gibson v. Berryhill - 411 U.S. 564 (1973) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center
Sign In	Justia > US Law > US Case Law > US Supreme Court > Volume 411 > Gibson v. Berryhill - 411 U.S. 564 > Case	NEW - Receive Justia's FREE Daily Newsletters of Opinion Summaries for the US Supreme Court, all US Federal Appellate Courts & the 50 US State Supreme Courts and Weekly Practice Area Opinion Summaries Newsletters. Subscribe Now
Gibson v. Berryhill - 411 U.S. 564 (1973)
Case	U.S. Supreme CourtGibson v. Berryhill, 411 U.S. 564 (1973)Gibson v. BerryhillNo. 71-653Argued January 9-10, 1973Decided May 7, 1973411 U.S. 564APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2. Nor did the rule of Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, or principles of comity require the District Court to dismiss appellees' suit in view of the pending Board proceeding, since the appellees Page 411 U. S. 565 alleged and the District Court concluded that the Board's bias rendered it incompetent to adjudicate the issues. Pp. 411 U. S. 575-577.
Prior to 1965, the laws of Alabama relating to the practice of optometry permitted any person, including a business firm or corporation, to maintain a department in which "eyes are examined or glasses fitted," provided that such department was in the charge of a duly licensed optometrist. This permission was expressly conferred by § 210 of Title 46 of the Alabama Code of 1940, and also, inferentially, by § 211 of the Code, which regulates the Page 411 U. S. 566 advertising practices of of optometrists and which, until 1965, appeared to contemplate the existence of commercial stores with optical departments. [Footnote 1] In 1965, § 210 was repealed in its entirety by the Alabama Legislature, and § 211 was amended so as to eliminate any direct reference Page 411 U. S. 567 to optical departments maintained by corporations or other business establishments under the direction of employee optometrists. [Footnote 2]
Soon after these statutory changes, the Alabama Optometric Association, a professional organization whose membership is limited to independent practitioners of optometry not employed by others, filed charges against various named optometrists, all of whom were duly licensed under Alabama law but were the salaried employees of Lee Optical Co. The charges were filed with the Alabama Board of Optometry, the statutory body with authority to issue, suspend, and revoke licenses for the practice of optometry. The gravamen of these charges was that the named optometrists, by accepting employment from Lee Optical, a corporation, had engaged in "unprofessional conduct" within the meaning of § 206 of the Alabama optometry statute, and hence were practicing their profession unlawfully. [Footnote 3] More particularly, Page 411 U. S. 568 the Association charged the named individuals with, among other things, aiding and abetting a corporation in the illegal practice of optometry; practicing optometry under a false name, that is, Lee Optical Co.; unlawfully soliciting the sale of glasses; lending their licenses to Lee Optical Co.; and splitting or dividing fees with Lee Optical. [Footnote 4] It was apparently the Association's position that, following the repeal of § 210 and the amendment of § 211, the practice of optometry by individuals as employees of business corporations was no longer permissible in Alabama, and that, by accepting such employment, the named optometrists had violated the ethics of their profession. It was prayed that the Board revoke the licenses of the individuals charged following due notice and a proper hearing.
Two days after these charges were filed by the Association in October, 1965, the Board filed a suit of its own in state court against Lee Optical, seeking to enjoin the company from engaging in the "unlawful practice of optometry." The Board's complaint also named 13 optometrists employed by Lee Optical as parties defendant, Page 411 U. S. 569 charging them with aiding and abetting the company in its illegal activities, as well as