Cited by

of Dentistry, - 915 (La.

of Dentistry, such a situation is not presented in the procedures set forth in Act 1.

of Dentistry, such a situation is not presented in the procedures set forth in Act 1.

of Dentistry, such a situation is not presented in the procedures set forth in Act 1.

13 we held that a system whereby the prosecutor of a state board drafted the board’s findings of fact violated due process because it represented a commingling of prosecutorial and adjudicative functions in a single person.

of Dentistry, In light of the fact that Mr. Jenkins anticipated being called to testify, Mr. Doskey was properly allowed to assume his role for purposes of the 17 November 2000 contempt hearing.

of Dentistry, we recognized the due process infirmity when a disciplinary board's attorney acts as both an internal advisor or counsel and the board's prosecutor.

Allen was later reversed on other grounds by the Louisiana Supreme Court in

The supreme court’s -16 (La.1989), wherein an accused party before the Board of Dentistry was denied due process rights when the prosecutor before the administrative board also drafted the findings of fact and conclusions for the administrative board.

In *437 support, and Georgia Gulf Corporation v. Board of Ethics for Public Employees, 96-1907 (La.5/9/97), .

of Dentistry, to support its claim, we find the facts in that case entirely distinguishable.

for the proposition that "[t]he idea of the same person serving as judge and prosecutor is anathema under our notions of due process.

commenting on the requirements of La.

(Accused party before Board of Dentistry was denied due process rights because prosecutor before the administrative board also drafted the findings of fact and conclusions for the administrative board.)

[1] We granted certiorari [2] to consider the due process questions raised in the appellate court

of Dentistry, the Louisiana Supreme Court found a violation of due process occurred because the board’s attorney functioned in multiple capacities.

of Dentistry, because Special Counsel Steven Scheckman served as the investigator, prosecutor, and author of the recommendations of the Commission.

followed the Withrow decision, and contained a distinguishable factual scenario.

it was held that the appearance of fairness was absent when the same person served as “prosecutor” and “judge.” In that case the Board’s attorney was involved in both the investigation and in the Board’s decision.

As authority for his contention that these three incidents constitute prosecutorial misconduct that violated Alexander's right to due process in the administrative hearing [3] , (1989), modified on rehearing June 29, 1989, and Mack v. Florida State Board of Dentistry, 430 F.2d 862 (5th Cir.1970), certiorari denied 401 U.S. 954 , 91 S.Ct.

By his fourth assignment of error, (1989) in arguing that his statutory and due process rights were violated by the Board’s process.

of Dentistry, in which the court found that the Dentistry Board violated a dentist’s rights to a fair hearing because the Board’s attorney who prosecuted him also prepared the Board’s decision against him.

In Allen v. Louisiana State Board of Dentistry , [6] the State Board of Dentistry's attorney acted as the investigator and prosecutor in the case and was then asked by the Board to prepare written findings of fact and conclusions of law.

-16 (La.1989) (idea of same person serving as judge and prosecutor is anathema under our notions of due process).

The case cited by Gulf States to support its contention that the combination of prosecutorial and fact-finding functions in one person violates due process, is not comparable to a ratemaking proceeding.

This decision, dealt with 45 counts of misconduct brought against a dentist before the Louisiana State Board of Dentistry.