Burris v. Cobb, No. 14-3740 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs filed suit against the Arkansas State Board of Dental Examiners's executive director and members of the Board, alleging that the Board’s enforcement of the Arkansas Dental Practice Act, Ark. Code Ann. 17-82-305(g)(2), violates his rights under the Federal Constitution. The district court concluded that it should abstain from deciding the case pursuant to the doctrine established by Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co. The court concluded that, because there is no ambiguity and thus no unsettled question of state law, Pullman abstention is not appropriate here. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for the district court to consider the arguments in the first instance.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Wollman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Arkansas Dental Practice Act. The Arkansas Act is clear in barring a licensed orthodontist from practicing general dentistry, including the type of teeth cleaning plaintiff was providing, and since the statute is clear and there is no unsettled question of state law, the district court erred in abstaining on the basis of the Pullman doctrine; remanded for further proceedings. [ December 10, 2015
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.