North Dakota Board of Pharmacy v. Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc.

PETITIONER: North Dakota Board of Pharmacy
RESPONDENT: Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc.
LOCATION: Cleveland Board of Education

DOCKET NO.: 72-1176
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1972-1975)
LOWER COURT: North Dakota Supreme Court

CITATION: 414 US 156 (1973)
ARGUED: Nov 06, 1973
DECIDED: Dec 05, 1973

ADVOCATES:
A. William Lucas -
Mart R. Vogel -

Facts of the case

Question

Media for North Dakota Board of Pharmacy v. Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc.

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 06, 1973 in North Dakota Board of Pharmacy v. Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc.

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - December 05, 1973 in North Dakota Board of Pharmacy v. Snyder's Drug Stores, Inc.

Warren E. Burger:

The judgment in opinion of the Court in 72-1176, North Dakota State Board of Pharmacy against Snyder’s Drug Stores be announced by Mr. Justice Douglas.

William O. Douglas:

This case is here on a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of North Dakota.

North Dakota passed a statute which required a pharmacist, if a corporation, to have a majority of its stock owned by registered pharmacist in good standing.

Respondent, Snyder’s Drug Stores Incorporation, applied for a permit to run a pharmacy in the State and was denied the permit on the basis of that statute.

On appeal by Snyder to the Supreme Court, the North Dakota Supreme Court held that the statute was unconstitutional on the basis of our decision, the Court’s decision, in 1928 in the Liggett case from Pennsylvania involving a like statute.

There are two points in the opinion dealt with it in some length.

First is the question of whether or not the judgment is final for our purposes within the meaning of Section 28, U.S. Code 1257.

We hold for reasons stated in the opinion that it is final.

And coming to the merits, we conclude that the Liggett case, decided in 1928, is out of line and consistent with the decisions handed down since that time that the statute of North Dakota is constitutional and that the Liggett case is, therefore, overruled.

As a result we have reverse and remand the case for further proceeding.