Legal Opinion

Martinez v. Mullen

District Court, D. Connecticut

Decided March 28, 2014No. 3:11-cv-01787 (MPS)PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

MICHAEL P. SHEA, District Judge.

This case, which involves the State of Connecticut’s regulation of teeth-whitening services provided by non-dentists, illustrates the great deference courts must afford governmental regulation under the doctrine known as “rational basis scrutiny.” The governmental regulation at issue here is a rule that only a licensed dentist may shine a “light emitting diode” (“LED”) lamp at the mouth of a consumer *151who seeks to whiten her teeth. Although the State has not submitted any clearly admissible evidence to support this regulation, and although…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Plyler v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
  4. Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
  5. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of HialeahSupreme Court of the United States · 1993

20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Westphal v. NorthcuttSupreme Court of Alabama · 2015

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API