Williamson v Lee Optical of Oklahoma

Williamson v Lee Optical of Oklahoma - balance advantages...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma (p. 764) (348 U.S. 483) Brief overview : - Oklahoma statute made it unlawful for optician (person qualified to grind lenses, fill prescriptions and fit frames) to fit or duplicate lenses w/o prescription from ophthalmologist (eye-care physician) or optometrist (examines for refractive error, recognizes eye diseases, and fill prescriptions for glasses) - district court found regulation to not be reasonably or rationally related to health and welfare of the people, and thus violated due process and optician’s right to do business - Supreme Court reversed decision on grounds that legislature, not courts, should be able to
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: balance advantages and disadvantages of requirement in statute, and law does not have to be logically consistent with its aims in every single situation in order to be constitutional; instead, there simply needs to be an evil to be corrected, and idea that particular legislation is rational way of correcting it- court also specifically notes that Due Process Clause cannot be used to strike down laws or regulations that are out of line with a particular school of thought (as it was in Lochner, etc.)...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/05/2008 for the course LAW 205 taught by Professor Joh during the Spring '08 term at UC Davis.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online