Williamson v. District of Columbia Board of Dentistry

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the licensing board‘s conclusion that ―because there was no notation of a prescription in a patient‘s record[,] this indicated that the prescription was issued for a reason outside a legitimate medical purpose‖ was not arbitrary or capricious
• holding that the licensing board‘s conclusion that ―because there was no notation of a prescription in a patient‘s record[,] this indicated that the prescription was issued for a reason outside a legitimate medical purpose‖ was not arbitrary or capricious
• holding that the licensing board’s conclusion that “because there was no notation of a prescription in a patient’s record[,] this indicated that, the prescription was issued for a. reason outside a legitimate medical purpose” was not arbitrary or capricious
• stating that a ―determination that is peculiarly within the Board‘s expertise relating to the practice of dentistry . . . call[s] for particular deference‖
• stating that a ―determination that is peculiarly within the Board‘s expertise relating to the practice of dentistry . . . call[s] for particular deference‖
• ―Our function is to ascertain whether the inferences drawn by the administrative agency are within the reasonable boundaries prescribed by the facts.‖ (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).