Gibson v. Berryhill

411 U.S. 564 (1973)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Gibson v. Berryhill

United States Supreme Court
411 U.S. 564 (1973)

  • Written by Peggy Chen, JD
Play video

Facts

Before 1965, Alabama permitted any person, including businesses and corporations, to maintain a department in which “eyes are examined or glasses fitted.” In 1965, this statute was repealed. Soon after the repeal, the Alabama Optometric Association (AOA) filed charges with the Alabama Board of Optometry (Board) against a group of optometrists who were employees of Lee Optical Co. (Lee), alleging that because the practice of optometry by individuals employed by corporations was no longer permitted by Alabama statute, the optometrists had violated the ethics of their profession by working for Lee. Shortly after this suit was filed, the Board filed a similar action against Lee in state court, seeking to enjoin Lee from the unlawful practice of optometry. The Board’s complaint named the optometrists employed by Lee as parties defendant, charging them with aiding and abetting Lee. The suit before the Board was stayed while the state court suit was heard. The state court rendered judgment for the Board, and enjoined Lee from practicing optometry and employing licensed optometrists. Lee appealed. The Board then reactivated the proceedings against the optometrists employed by Lee. The optometrists (plaintiffs) filed a complaint in the United States District Court against the Board of Optometry and its individual members (defendants) seeking an injunction against the Board hearings. The suit argued that the statutory scheme regulating the practice of optometry in Alabama was unconstitutional because it permitted the Board to hear pending charges and the Board was biased and could not provide a fair and impartial hearing in conformity with due process. The district court agreed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (White, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 804,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership