Opinion ID: 1905888
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: police power permits reasonable regulation of previously licensed professionals

Text: The four physicians who commenced the present action argue that a requirement by statute that previously licensed physicians furnish evidence of professional liability insurance and participate in the patient's trust fund, or lose their licenses if they fail to do so, violates the concept of substantive due process and constitutes an improper exercise of the police power of the State. In a very recent case, Johnson v. Elkin, 263 N.W.2d 123, 130 (N.D.1978), we said: We conclude that there is no general constitutional prohibition against legislation limiting entry into occupations or professions. Any occupation or profession may be subject to the police power. The only question is whether the regulation, as to entry into the occupation or profession or otherwise, is reasonable and, within constitutional limits, promotes the order, safety, health, morals and general welfare of society. [Citation omitted.] The rule is the same as to continuance of a profession or occupation after the original entry. Reasonable regulation is still permissible. We discuss the due-process question below.