Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

writ of mandamus
trial

Related Cases

Long v. Zopp, 476 F.2d 180
View Case »
Pro-Football, Inc. v. Uhlenhake, 37 Va.App. 407, 558 S.E.2d 571
View Case »
Clark, By and Through Clark v. Arizona Interscholastic Ass’n, 695 F.2d 1126, 8 Ed. Law Rep. 246
View Case »
Richard v. Perkins, 373 F.Supp.2d 1211, 199 Ed. Law Rep. 736
View Case »
San Francisco Seals, Ltd. v. National Hockey League, 379 F.Supp. 966, 1974-2 Trade Cases P 75,203
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Eastman v. Southworth, 87 Ariz. 394, 351 P.2d 992

Facts

Lewis K. Eastman, a physician licensed in Illinois, applied for a certificate to practice medicine in Arizona in 1951. Despite complying with all requirements, the State Board of Medical Examiners delayed action on his application for nine years, citing moral unfitness without providing justification or conducting an oral examination until five years after the application was filed. Eastman alleged that the Board's actions were arbitrary and capricious, leading him to seek a writ of mandamus to compel the Board to act on his application.

The facts of the case are that petitioner is a physician and surgeon, and has been engaged in the practice of his profession in the State of Illinois since November 1917 after his graduation from Loyola University School of Medicine until some time previous to coming to Arizona in 1951, and is now duly licensed to practice his profession in that state.

Issue

Did the State Board of Medical Examiners waive its right to require an oral examination of Eastman due to its prolonged inaction on his application?

Did the State Board of Medical Examiners waive its right to require an oral examination of Eastman due to its prolonged inaction on his application?

Rule

Analysis

The Board's failure to act on Eastman's application for nine years, coupled with the lack of a timely oral examination, indicated that it had waived its right to impose such a requirement. The court found that the Board's actions were arbitrary, as it had not substantiated its claims of moral unfitness with any formal complaints or evidence within the statutory timeframe.

The second amended complaint alleged that the Board of Medical Examiners of Arizona by its conduct has waived the right to require petitioner to take an oral examination at this late date. We agree with this view. If the Board ever intended to require petitioner to take an oral examination it has by its conduct abandoned it and therefore waived the right to now require it.

Conclusion

The court reversed the dismissal of Eastman's complaint, holding that the Board had waived its right to require an oral examination and must act on his application.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed with directions for further proceedings not inconsistent with this decision.

Who won?

Lewis K. Eastman prevailed in this case as the court found that the State Board of Medical Examiners had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in delaying his application for nine years. The court emphasized that the Board had a legal obligation to act on his application and could not disregard the law for such an extended period. The ruling mandated that the Board must now process Eastman's application without imposing unnecessary delays.

Lewis K. Eastman prevailed in this case as the court found that the State Board of Medical Examiners had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in delaying his application for nine years.

You must be