Johnson v. Board of Governors of Registered Dentists
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
SUMMERS, Justice,
dissenting in part to the denial of rehearing (concurring in part and dissenting in part to the opinion) with whom LAVENDER and WATT, Justices, join.
My only disagreement with the opinion is in its requirement that the burden of proof on dental license revocation must be by evidence that is clear and convincing rather than by a preponderance of the evidence, as had been provided by the Dental Board of Governors. I believe the Court errs in holding that clear and convincing evidence is constitutionally required before the license of a professional can be revoked. In my opinion…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional ComplexSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Nordlinger v. HahnSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.