{
  "id": 1467086,
  "name": "Lindquist v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lindquist v. State",
  "decision_date": "1948-10-11",
  "docket_number": "4515",
  "first_page": "903",
  "last_page": "906",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "213 Ark. 903"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "213 S.W.2d 895"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "199 Ark. 814",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1456639
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/199/0814-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 337,
    "char_count": 4277,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.345930978987578
    },
    "sha256": "a7b16b5f3271af005032f619ab2a137e817c541f7e69d4b6358f5e457336c691",
    "simhash": "1:cafd064960cc4031",
    "word_count": 686
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:58:24.264428+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mr. Justice McFaddin not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Lindquist v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Gbikbtn Smith, Chief Justice.\nKarl Lindquist and the other appellants constitute the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners. Acting under what they thought to be the applicable statute, Pope\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 10778, they licensed Thelma Anderson in September \u00cd947 without requiring her to procure a certificate from the Board of Examiners in the Basic Sciences. Each was fined one dollar, it being the trial Court\u2019s views, in which, we concur, that the action was erroneous but not willfully or wantonly done.\nAppellants contend they were authorized by Pope\u2019s \u00a7 10778 (\u00a7 3, Act 485 of 192\u00cd) to grant reciprocity \u201cwith states having equally as high literary professional requirements as provided in this State. \u201d . Section 1 of the Act, \u00a7 10776 of Pope\u2019s Digest, prohibits an applicant. from taking an examination before the Chiropractic Board without supplying evidence th\u00e1t he or she possesses a four-year high school education or the equivalent. The license-seeker must also have graduated from a reputable college of Chiropractic teaching a resident course of not less than three years in anatomy, chemistry, physiology, hygiene, symptomatology, chiropractic principles, and diagnosis. One in possession of these prerequisites may take the examination.\nAppellants\u2019 argument is that under \u00a7 3 the Chiropractic Board is expressly empowered to recognize a reciprocating state\u2019s license because there has been a determination that the applicant was qualified in basic science subjects and that such state exacted literary [and] professional requirements equal in dignity to those established in Arkansas. [Reference to the conjunction \u201cand\u201d is made in the first footnote.]\nSubsequent to the legislation heretofore referred to the General Assembly, as a matter of public policy, established a Board of Examiners in the Basic Sciences. Act 147 of 1929, Pope\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 10795-14. Some of its provisions were construed in Stroud v. Crow, 199 Ark. 814, 136 S. W. 2d 1025. In the opinion it was said that the 1929 enactment did not repeal, amend, or modify any preexisting law \u201crelative to examination of applicants to practice the healing art, but is an additional requirement.\u201d It was something to be complied with before taking the examination.\nThese statements, it is now urged, are judicial determination that discretion was left in the Chiropractic Board to waive examinations.\nSection 19 of the Basic Science Act directs that none of its provisions be construed as repealing any statute in force at the time of its passage \u201cwith reference to the requirements governing the issuance of a license to practice the healing art or any branch thereof. \u2019 \u2019\nWe think (as Mr. Justice McIIaney expressed it in the Stroiid ease) that Act 147 \u201csuperimposed its requirements\u201d upon preexisting laws. Since it directs how the licensing authority should proceed and is complete in this respect, construction is not difficult. Section 1 bars from examination any person who has not presented to the licensing board ... a certificate of ability in the basic science subjects issued by the State Board of Examiners [in the basic sciences]; but that Board (\u00a7 8) may waive the examination required by \u00a7 7 and issue a certificate upon which the licensing board may act. In either event the Basic Science Board must certify. Sections 1 and 7 of Act 147 are not inconsistent or contradictory.\nIn extenuation, appellants call attention to official opinions given by the Attorneys General, as early as June 1929 and as recently as 1947, expressing the belief that the law permitted the exercise of reciprocity as practiced by appellants; hence they should be excused. Courts have no snoh power; but they may, as we here do, recog-\u2019 nize an absence of wrongful intent.\nAffirmed.\nMr. Justice McFaddin not participating.\nAppellants, in copying \u00a7 3 of the Act, have unintentionally added \u201cand\u201d between \u201cliterary\u201d and \u201cprofessional.\u201d Neither the Digest nor the printed Acts of 1921 contains \u201cand,\u201d nor does the original or enrolled Bill, now on file in the office of the Secretary of State.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Gbikbtn Smith, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Joe H. Schneider, Henry Donham and William H. Donham, Jr., for appellant.",
      "Guy E. Williams, Attorney General, and Eugene B. Warren, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lindquist v. State.\n4515\n213 S. W. 2d 895\nOpinion delivered October 11, 1948.\nJoe H. Schneider, Henry Donham and William H. Donham, Jr., for appellant.\nGuy E. Williams, Attorney General, and Eugene B. Warren, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0903-01",
  "first_page_order": 919,
  "last_page_order": 922
}