Author: Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 0
Book Description
Reply Brief for Petitioner, The North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners
Author: Brief for Petitioner, The North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners
Author: In the Supreme Court of the United States, North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners, Petitioner, V. Federal Trade Commission
Author: Donald Beaton VerrilliPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Antitrust law
Languages : en
Pages : 58
Book Description
The issue presented is whether in order to claim exemption from federal antitrust laws using the state action doctrine, a state board controlled by private market participants must be be actively supervised by disinterested state officials.
Staff Report on North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners
Author: North Carolina. Governmental Evaluation CommissionPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Dental laws and legislation
Languages : en
Pages : 74
Book Description
Dental Law Book of North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners
Author: North CarolinaPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Dental laws and legislation
Languages : en
Pages : 110
Book Description
Final Commission Report on North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners
Author: North Carolina. Governmental Evaluation CommissionPublisher:
ISBN:
Category : Dental laws and legislation
Languages : en
Pages : 38
Book Description
THIEDEMANN V. STATE BOARD OF DENTAL EXAMINERS, 214 MICH 369 (1921)
Author: A-Kaq
Author: North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners V. Federal Trade Commission
Author: United States United States GovernmentPublisher: Createspace Independent Publishing Platform
ISBN: 9781530636983
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 36
Book Description
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an administrative complaint, alleging that the Board's concerted action to exclude non dentists from the market for for teeth whitening services in North Carolina constitted an anti competitive and unfair method of competition under the Federal Trade Commission Act. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the Board's motion to dismiss on the ground of state-action immunity. The FTC sustained that ruling, reasoning that even if the Board had acted pursuant to a clearly articulated state policy to displace competition, the Board must be actively supervised by the State to claim immunity, which it was not. After a hearing on the merits, the ALJ determined that the Board had unreasonably restrained trade in violation of antitrust law. The FTC again sustained the ALJ, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed the FTC in all respects.
Author: