Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Orwitz v. Board of Dental Examiners, 1941 — 313 U.S. 546 · caselaw · US
General
Orwitz v. Board of Dental Examiners
313 U.S. 546·Supreme Court of the United States·1941
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 938.
Orwitz v. Board of Dental Examiners.
May 12, 1941.
Mr. Thos. D. Aitken for appellant.- Mr. H. E. Linder-smith for appellee.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Per Curiam:
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a properly presented substantial federal question. (1) Semler v. State Board of Dental Examiners, 294 U. S. 608; Brown v. Massachusetts, 308 U. S. 504. (2) Cleveland & Pittsburgh R. Co. v. Cleveland, 235 U. S. 50, 53; Hiawassee Power Co. v. Carolina-Tenn. Co., 252 U. S. 341, 344; White River Co. v. Arkansas, 279 U. S. 692, 700.