Croft v. Arizona State Board of Dental Examiners

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “inadequacy of the treatment plan and inadequacy of orthodontic treatment [are] two separate matters”
• expert testimony not necessary in a disciplinary proceeding when a majority of the Board and its investigative members were licensed dentists \familiar with the standard of care required\
• In assessing the sufficiency of evidence in administrative proceedings, courts should “show a certain degree of deference to the judgment of the agency based upon the accumulated experience and expertise of its members.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).