People v. Kelley

California Court of Appeal Jun 3, 1977 No. Civ. 3126Published

Before: Franson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the preliminary injunction was constitutionally overbroad because it prohibited appellants from engaging in lawful, statutorily authorized dental laboratory activities that are exempt from the Dental Practice Act.

Issues

Whether the preliminary injunction against dental laboratory technicians was constitutionally overbroad by prohibiting statutorily authorized activities.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We hold that the preliminary injunction is constitutionally overbroad in that it explicitly prohibits appellants from engaging in a statutorily authorized and constitutionally protected activity”

“Injunctions which on their face enjoin a person from engaging in activities which are constitutionally or statutorily authorized are beyond the jurisdiction of the court and are void.”

Opinion

FRANSON, J.

On July 7, 1976, the District Attorney of Fresno County, acting for the People of the State of California and the Board of Dental Examiners of the State of California (respondents), filed complaints for civil penalties, injunction, and other equitable relief against appellants. The action was brought under the California Dental Practice Act to enjoin appellants from engaging in the practice of dentistry without a license. (See Bus. & Prof. Code, §§ 1703, 17535, and Civ. Code, § 3369, subd. 5.)

Appellants are dental laboratory technicians who have been engaged for a number of years in the practice of constructing, making, altering and repairing bridges and dental prosthetics for licensed dentists.

In the spring of 1976 appellants commenced to hold out to the public that they would construct and sell bridges, dentures and other orthodontic and prosthetic devices directly to members of the public. Appellants openly advised local dentists in the Fresno area of their involvement in the “denturist movement” and that they were “going public.” Appellants placed numerous newspaper ads offering to perform work directly for the public.

Thereafter, appellants conducted oral examinations, checked bites, measured mouths for dentures, took impressions, adjusted, constructed and repaired dentures for persons coming in off the street.

On July 7, 1976, the superior court issued an order to show cause and temporary restraining order against appellants enjoining them from the unlicensed practice of dentistry.

On August 13, 1976, at the hearing on the order to show cause, a preliminary injunction issued which was upon all terms a continuation of the temporary restraining order.

[421]

The preliminary injunction states in pertinent part:

“It Is Ordered that during the pendency of this action or until further order of the Court, defendants, their agents, officers, employees and representatives, and all persons acting in concert or participating with them, are hereby enjoined from engaging in or performing any and all of the following:

People v. Kelley

AI Brief

FRANSON, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief