Court Opinion

ID: 9698112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:42:20.707631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:38.471165
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Justice Mandebino:
I must dissent. The appellant has raised several questions concerning the constitutionality of the statute which establishes the State Dental Board and the Attorney General has conceded that there is merit to the appellant’s challenge. The majority, however, improperly concludes that the appellant does not have standing to raise the issue of the statute’s constitutionality. The majority’s holding, under the rubric of standing, deprives the appellant of due process of law. The rule which gives the same effect to the acts of de facto officials as that given to the acts of de jure officials should apply only in cases where the acts of the de facto officials are final before they are challenged and *279the citizen challenging the constitutional authority of the officials has waived his right to raise that issue.
In this case the appellant raised the issue of the statute’s unconstitutionality during his hearing before the Dental Board. The Board’s actions were thus not final and the appellant did not waive his right to challenge the de jure authority of the Board. The appellant had standing and the constitutional issue raised requires a reversal.