Langlitz v. Board of Registration of Chiropractors

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that it was not necessary to show resulting harm to the public because “[t]he board’s determination that the advertisement was inherently misleading was a matter of common experience and common sense, based on the appearance and content of the advertisement itself’
• noting that fundamental fairness requires that decisions concerning licenses to engage in lawful occupation be made after opportunity for hearing
• “administrative deprivation of a professional license must be preceded by notice and an op portunity to be heard appropriate to the nature of the case”
• board free to evaluate evidence in light of its own technical expertise, and to draw inferences regarding legal effect
• failure of party to request continuance or other relief defeats the claim of unfair surprise
• board “free to evaluate evidence in light of its own technical expertise, and to draw inferences regarding the legal effect of the conduct at issue”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).