Florida State Board of Dentistry v. Mack
401 U.S. 960 (1971)

Annotate this Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Florida State Board of Dentistry v. Mack, 401 U.S. 960 (1970)

Florida State Board of Dentistry v. Mack, 401 U.S. 960 (1970)

No. 966

Decided March 8, 1971

Rehearing denied April 19, 1971

401 U.S. 960

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED

STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting.

Respondent, Dr. Roy F. Mack, was a dentist whose license to practice was revoked by the Florida State Board of Dentistry, the petitioner herein. Dr. Mack sought judicial review of the revocation proceedings in the state courts where he urged, without success, "that the procedure before the Dental Board was such that he was deprived of a fair and impartial trial." Mack v. Pepper, 192 So.2d 66, 67 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1966), cert. denied, 201 So.2d 551 (Fla. 1967). Mack did not seek certiorari in this Court, but instead commenced an action in federal district court seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He argued in the District Court that the proceedings before the State Board were unconstitutional in that the board acted as both prosecutor and judge in his case, and further in that the charges against him were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The District Court held for Mack on the former although not the latter ground. Mack v. Florida State Board of Dentistry, 296 F.Supp. 1259 (SD Fla. 1969). On appeal, the Court of Appeals rejected both grounds advanced by Mack, but nonetheless held in his favor, concluding that the procedure before the board amounted not to a fair and impartial hearing, but to "an ungoverned confrontation" totally unlike "anything which claims to be an administrative hearing as known to the jurisprudence of this County." Mack v. Florida State Board of Dentistry, 430 F.2d 862 (CA5 1970).

Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.