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

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 | authorizing constructive termination for convenience to moot claim for breach of the contract during its term, absent bad faith or clear abuse of discretion | 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 | 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" | claim for overtime wages considered under section 596 but rejected on ground that withholding was not without sufficient cause | court sua sponte ordered the Commission to provide “a list of all of the ex parte presentations, together with the details of each, made to it, or any of its members or representatives, during the rule-making proceedings” | Policy Statement constitutes "request to this court to reconsider its position in WEFM." | decisionmakers should refuse to engage in ex parte communication with interested parties | criticizing FDA’s failure to put scientific data on the record | Policy Statement constitutes “request to this court to reconsider its position in WEFM." | "(W)e think it odd that the Department (of Justice) has not presented factual data to the Commission which would allow it to assess the likely effect of its rules on various fields of competition. The Department's arguments are basically speculative * * *." | incomplete record is fictional account of actual decisionmaking process | “[W]e think it odd that the Department [of Justice] has not presented factual data to the Commission which would allow it to assess the likely effect of its rules on various fields of competition. The Department’s arguments are basically speculative * * *.” | rejecting allegations of bad faith against government | Dkt. Nos. 76-1841 and -1842 | disciplinary proceeding not a criminal prosecution | Dkt. Nos. 76-1841 and -1842