Compton v. District of Columbia Board of Psychology

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that there was inadequate corroboration of the complainant’s out-of-court allegations even though the government called the complainant as a rebuttal witness (making her subject to limited cross-examination
• holding that there was inadequate corroboration of the complainant's out-of-court allegations even though the government called the complainant as a rebuttal witness (making her subject to limited cross-examination
• stating that \nothing in the hearsay nature of evidence inherently excludes it from the concept of 'substantial' proof in administrative proceedings\
• noting that “due to the private nature of allegations of sexual misconduct, credibility was the critical issue”
• finding ALJ could not resolve the “conflicting testimony” in favor of the government absent “some corroboration”
• finding ALJ could not resolve the “conflicting testimony” in favor of. the government absent “some corroboration”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).