Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

State Board of Nursing and State Board of Healing Arts v. Ruebke

Supreme Court of Kansas
913 P.2d 142 (1996)


Facts

Historically, midwives played an important role in pregnancy, including assisting in the birthing process. In the late 19th century, however, medical practice became more standardized and physicians, specifically obstetricians, lobbied for more restrictive licensing laws because midwives were direct competitors. Until 1910, approximately 50 percent of Kansas births were assisted by midwives although they were not viewed as engaging in the practice of obstetrics. By 1986, only 12 states, including Kansas, had no legislation directly or indirectly allowing or prohibiting lay midwifery. In 1993, the State Board of Healing Arts (SBHA) (plaintiff) published a policy stating the lay midwifery was the practice of medicine and surgery and that practicing midwifery without approval by the State Board of Nursing (Nursing Board) (plaintiff) would be classified as unlicensed practice of medicine and surgery. E. Michelle Ruebke (defendant) was a lay midwife who assisted with prenatal care, delivery, and post-partum care. She was the president of the Kansas Midwives Association and followed the association’s standards. Ruebke worked with supervising physicians who offered consultation and assistance whenever needed. Ruebke did not hold herself out as anything other than a lay midwife. The SBHA and the Nursing Board brought an action against Ruebke for practicing medicine and nursing without a license and requested injunctive relief to stop Ruebke from performing lay midwife duties. The trial court denied the injunction, holding that the provisions of both the Healing Arts law and Nursing law were unconstitutionally vague. The SBHA and the Nursing Board appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Larson, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 202,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.