# South Carolina State Board of Dentistry v. Federal Trade Commission

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · June 27, 2006 · 455 F.3d 436

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9499065

## Case

- **Full name:** SOUTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF DENTISTRY, Petitioner, v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Respondent
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 27, 2006
- **Citations:** 455 F.3d 436
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Traxler
- **Judges:** Motz, Traxler, Jones, Western, Virginia
- **Cited by:** 24 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9499065

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that under the collateral order doctrine the order being reviewed must not involve "considerations that are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising the plaintiff's cause of action”
- rejecting collateral order appeal of a Parker immunity claim in a suit brought by the federal government; “because such suits do not offend the dignity of a state, sovereign immunity is no defense to such an action”
- noting that qualified immunity does not “operate[] in cases seeking purely equitable relief”

## Opinion text

TRAXLER, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment:
I concur in my colleague’s fine opinion except with respect to the holding in Part III. In my view, the question of whether the actor represents the state is separate and severable from the question of whether the action taken is unlawful. Nevertheless, because the district court order is not “effectively unreviewable” after trial, as pointed out by Judge Motz, I agree the order is not immediately appealable and *448 the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9499065. Public record. Not legal advice.