In the Interest of: D.S., of: C.S.

How courts have described this case

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

• relying upon the Eleventh Circuit’s treatment of the title “psychologist” in Abramson v. Gonzalez , 949 F.2d 1567, 1574-75 (11th Cir. 1992)
• upholding the requirement of the use of a disclaimer by dentist when certain credentials were used
• “The state has a substantial interest in regulating the dental profession, establishing uniform standards for certification, and in ensuring that dentists’ advertisements are not misleading to consumers”
• “Before analyzing [the challenged state statute] under the [appropriate level of First Amendment scrutiny], we must first determine whether the statute, taken as a whole, is clear as far as what is required and what is prohibited.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).