Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Lee Optical Co. v. State Board of Examiners in Optometry

Supreme Court of Alabama · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawRetroactive legislationRemedial statutesState regulation of professionsSection 95 Alabama Constitutionretrospective applicationcurative actremedial statute

Facts

The State Board of Optometry alleged that Lee Optical Company and several individual respondents were engaged in the unlawful practice of optometry in Alabama. According to the complaint, the individual respondents practiced optometry in stores operated by Lee Optical under employment contracts, agreements, or arrangements with the company. The Board sought a prohibitory injunction barring the respondents from such practice and barring Lee Optical from employing optometrists or physicians to examine customers' eyes and prescribe eyeglasses in its stores. After the appeal was submitted, the legislature enacted Act No. 509 of 1967, authorizing public regulatory bodies to seek injunctions against unauthorized or unlawful practice and expressly making the Act retrospective and prospective.

Issue

Whether Act No. 509, which authorizes a regulatory body such as the State Board of Optometry to seek injunctions against unlawful professional practice and expressly applies retrospectively, could be applied to this case while it was pending on appeal. More specifically, the question was whether such retrospective application violated § 95 of the Alabama Constitution by taking away a cause of action or destroying an existing defense after suit had begun.

Rule

Under § 95 of the Alabama Constitution, the legislature may not retroactively alter substantive rights by taking away a cause of action or destroying an existing defense after suit has commenced. But § 95 applies only to matters of substance, not to matters of form or remedial statutes; therefore, the legislature may enact curative, remedial legislation that retrospectively changes or adds remedies or procedural authority, so long as no vested substantive right is affected, and such legislation may apply to pending litigation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The Colorado Board of Interior Design filed an equity action in Denver seeking to enjoin Nora Patel and Front Range Workspace Group from the unauthorized practice of interior design. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the board lacked statutory authority to sue, and while the board's appeal was pending, the legislature enacted a statute expressly authorizing licensing boards to seek injunctions and stating that the act applies retrospectively and prospectively.

How should the appellate court rule on the new statute's applicability to this case?

Explanation. The majority held that a statute expressly authorizing a regulatory body to seek injunctive relief against unauthorized practice, and making that authority retrospective, may be applied to litigation still pending on appeal if the statute is curative and remedial rather than substantive. A case on appeal is still pending, and no party has a vested right in a particular remedy or mode of procedure. Because the new law merely supplies authority to sue and a remedy, § 95 is not violated. (Derived from Lee Optical Co. v. State Board of Examiners in Optometry (n.d.).)