Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
General
Amsel et al., doing business as Amsel Dental Laboratory, v. Brooks et al., Members of the Dental Commission of Connecticut
348 U.S. 880·Supreme Court of the United States·1954
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
No. 404.
Amsel et al., doing business as Amsel Dental Laboratory, v. Brooks et al., Members of the Dental Commission of Connecticut.
Margaret Driscoll and John J. Darcy for appellants.
William L. Beers, Attorney General of Connecticut, and Louis Weinstein, Assistant Attorney General, for appellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam:]
Appeal from the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.
Per Curiam:
The appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question.