Daley v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois

How later courts describe this case

• stating that “[i]n the cases where the court has considered allegations of bad faith, the necessary ‘irrefragable proof’ has been equated with evidence of some specific intent to injure the plaintiff.”
• requiring agencies to present "a record that convincingly shows a problem to exist" in order to satisfy the "substantial interest" prong of the O'Brien test
• authorizing constructive termination for convenience to moot claim for breach of the contract during its term, absent bad faith or clear abuse of discretion
• vacating FCC rules restricting pay cable showing of certain feature film and sports programming
• interpreting APA notice and comment provisions and noting that “the opportunity to comment is meaningless unless the agency responds to significant points raised by the public”
• “Viewing the immunity grant in its proper perspective as a powerful executive implement, it must be recognized that prosecutorial agreement may effectively function, extra-statute, to confer immunity other than through a legislatively-authorized method.”
• “Under no circumstances, however, may a federal court prescribe immunity on its own initiative. . ”
• ”[T]he Fifth Amendment Privilege against self-incrimination does not proscribe the introduction in state bar disciplinary proceedings of testimony compelled under a grant of immunity"