From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Brazil v. Arkansas State Board

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Apr 17, 1985
759 F.2d 674 (8th Cir. 1985)

Opinion

No. 84-2247.

Submitted April 12, 1985.

Decided April 17, 1985.

Ronald J. Bruno, Little Rock, Ark., for appellants.

William Dean Overstreet, Little Rock, Ark., for appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas; G. Thomas Eisele, District Judge.

Before ARNOLD and FAGG, Circuit Judges, and HARPER, Senior District Judge.

The Hon. Roy W. Harper, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri, sitting by designation.


Barry Brazil, the principal plaintiff in this case, brought this action against the Arkansas State Board of Dental Examiners, a state agency, and the Arkansas State Dental Association under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 2, and the Constitution of the United States. Plaintiff owns and operates a dental laboratory, the American Denture Center, which constructs, repairs, reproduces, duplicates, and processes dentures. He describes himself as a "denturist." The complaint's antitrust and constitutional claims challenge certain regulations issued by the Arkansas State Board of Dental Examiners, at the instance, it is alleged, of the Arkansas State Dental Association. These regulations, among other things, define the practice of dentistry, which the board regulates under state law, to include the construction of dentures. The regulations provide that no one may construct a denture "without written prescription or work order therefor signed by [a] dentist." Rule 5(f) of the Dental Board. Plaintiff claims, in addition, that the regulations have the effect of prohibiting the making of dentures by anyone not employed by a licensed dentist.

The main question presented is whether the defendant Board's issuance of these regulations, at the instance of the defendant association, is immune from antitrust attack under the state-action doctrine. The District Court, 593 F. Supp. 1354, held in favor of the immunity defense. Its opinion is comprehensive and discriminating, and we have nothing of substance to add.

The Hon. Garnett Thomas Eisele, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.

We have considered appellants' other arguments and hold that they are without merit.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Brazil v. Arkansas State Board

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
Apr 17, 1985
759 F.2d 674 (8th Cir. 1985)
Case details for

Brazil v. Arkansas State Board

Case Details

Full title:BARRY BRAZIL AND PATSIE BRAZIL, D/B/A AMERICAN DENTURE CENTER, DR. NEIL…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit

Date published: Apr 17, 1985

Citations

759 F.2d 674 (8th Cir. 1985)

Citing Cases

Paragould Cablevision v. City of Paragould, Ark.

And, argues plaintiff, citing dicta in a footnote in this Court's decision in Brazil v. Arkansas Board of…

81 Op. Att'y Gen. 74

In bringing such an action, the Board would enjoy "State action" immunity from potential antitrust liability.…