Jacobs v. Board of Dental Examiners

TYLER, P. J.

Proceedings in prohibition and

certiorari

were instituted in the court below for the purpose of reviewing the action of the Board of Dental Examiners in revoking the licenses of certain practitioners, parties hereto. Hearings were had thereon and certain judgments were entered which are here sought to be reviewed on appeal. Since the filing of

[361]

the briefs the cases of

Whitten

v.

California State Board of Optometry,

8 Cal. (2d) 444 [65 Pac. (2d) 1296], and

Hartman

v.

Board of Chiropractic Examiners,

20 Cal. App. (2d) 76 [66 Pac. (2d) 705], have been rendered by our appellate courts. (See, also,

Standard Oil Co.

v.

State Board of Equalization,

6 Cal. (2d) 557 [59 Pac. (2d) 119];

MacCracken

v.

Board of Medical Examiners, ante,

p. 58 [74 Pac. (2d) 289].) These decisions are to the. effect that neither prohibition nor

certiorari

will lie to review the exercise of the purely administrative functions of such boards, and in the absence of constitutional provision the legislature is without authority to confer upon an administrative board any judicial functions. Here the board in question exercised discretionary administrative functions in revoking the licenses and did not exercise judicial powers. This being so the superior court was without jurisdiction to consider or determine the issues there presented. It is argued that notwithstanding this fact the eases should be heard on their merits because (1) the right to object to the appropriateness of the remedies invoked was not raised in the superior court ; (2) because the writs of prohibition and