Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Wisconsin forbids the practice of medicine without a license. The Examining Board that issued such licenses was empowered to warn and reprimand, temporarily to suspend, or to institute criminal action or action to revoke a license when it found probable cause under criminal or revocation statutes. Larkin (P) was practicing medicine and was investigated for his abortion practices. During the first hearing, P was present but was not allowed to cross-examine. P filed his complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 eventually seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief and a temporary restraining order preventing D from investigating him and from conducting the investigative hearing. After the first hearing and lawsuit by P, notice was sent to P that a contested hearing would be held to determine whether he had practiced under another name, split fees, or allowed unlicensed doctors to perform abortions. P eventually obtained an injunction against the contested hearing in that it was unfair and unconstitutional to have the investigator made the final decision as an adjudicator. D complied and did not go forward with the hearing. Instead, it held a final investigative session and found P guilty as charged. A three-judge panel found that the process given to P was unconstitutional as a violation of due process guarantees and enjoined the Board from enforcing it. The board (D) appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.