Gibson v. Berryhill case brief summary
411 U.S. 564 (1973)
CASE FACTS
Appellant Alabama Optometric Association filed charges with appellant Alabama Board of Optometry alleging that appellees, optometrists employed by an optical company, had engaged in "unprofessional conduct" by maintaining employment with the company, and appellant Board filed similar charges in state court. Appellees filed suit under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 seeking an injunction against scheduled hearings regarding revoking appellees' licenses, alleging that the Board was biased and could not provide appellees with a fair and impartial hearing.
DISCUSSION
OUTCOME
The Court affirmed the conclusion that appellant Alabama Board of Optometry was so biased that it could not constitutionally conduct licensure revocation hearings but vacated the district court's injunction.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
411 U.S. 564 (1973)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellants, the Alabama Board of
Optometry and its members, the Alabama Optometric Association, and
other individuals, challenged an order of a federal district court,
which granted an injunction against scheduled hearings to revoke the
licenses held by appellees, optometrists employed by an optical
company, in appellees' suit filed under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 of
the Civil Rights Act of 1871.CASE FACTS
Appellant Alabama Optometric Association filed charges with appellant Alabama Board of Optometry alleging that appellees, optometrists employed by an optical company, had engaged in "unprofessional conduct" by maintaining employment with the company, and appellant Board filed similar charges in state court. Appellees filed suit under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 seeking an injunction against scheduled hearings regarding revoking appellees' licenses, alleging that the Board was biased and could not provide appellees with a fair and impartial hearing.
DISCUSSION
- The Court affirmed the district court's determinations that neither statute nor the principles of equity, comity, and federalism precluded it from adjudicating the issues and issuing the injunction and that appellant Board was too biased to constitutionally conduct licensure revocation hearings.
- The Court vacated the injunction, holding that considerations of equity, comity, and federalism warranted reconsideration in light of the Alabama Supreme Court's decisions that nothing in the optometry law prohibited a licensed optometrist from accepting employment from a business corporation.
OUTCOME
The Court affirmed the conclusion that appellant Alabama Board of Optometry was so biased that it could not constitutionally conduct licensure revocation hearings but vacated the district court's injunction.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
No comments:
Post a Comment