§Why CasetextPricing

SolarCity Corporation v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District

RESPONSE in Opposition re: 83 MOTION to Stay Pending Appeal

58 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Creighton

    483 U.S. 635 (1987)   Cited 15,396 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an officer is entitled to qualified immunity if "a reasonable officer could have believed" that the search was lawful "in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed"

  2. Nken v. Holder

    556 U.S. 418 (2009)   Cited 3,267 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "courts must be mindful that the Government's role as the respondent in every removal proceeding does not make the public interest in each individual one negligible"

  3. Moses H. Cone Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp.

    460 U.S. 1 (1983)   Cited 11,871 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Holding stay order appealable under § 1291 where it put the litigant "effectively out of court," and "surrender[ed] jurisdiction of a federal suit to a state court"

  4. Hilton v. Braunskill

    481 U.S. 770 (1987)   Cited 2,969 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if the State makes a substantial case on the merits, continued custody is permissible if the second and fourth factors "militate against release"

  5. Johnson v. Jones

    515 U.S. 304 (1995)   Cited 1,912 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because the defendant police officer was challenging the denial of summary judgment on an excessive force claim by arguing only that she did not do what she was accused of doing -- striking, punching or kicking the plaintiff -- she was asking for a review of the claim's merits, which is not permissible on interlocutory review

  6. Green v. Mansour

    474 U.S. 64 (1985)   Cited 1,860 times
    Holding that notice relief was barred by sovereign immunity

  7. Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter

    558 U.S. 100 (2009)   Cited 752 times   17 Legal Analyses
    Holding that pretrial discovery orders are not immediately appealable absent a showing that "delaying review until the entry of a final judgment would imperil a substantial public interest or some particular value of a high order"

  8. Swint v. Chambers County Comm'n

    514 U.S. 35 (1995)   Cited 1,099 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a denial of a motion for summary judgment on a Monell claim is not appealable under the collateral order doctrine because the defendant's argument would amount to a "mere defense to liability" that could be "reviewed effectively on appeal from final judgment"

  9. Zenith Corp. v. Hazeltine

    395 U.S. 100 (1969)   Cited 2,442 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court erred when it enjoined a nonparty that was never determined to be in active concert with a defendant

  10. Ortiz v. Jordan

    562 U.S. 180 (2011)   Cited 522 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a party may not appeal an order denying summary judgment after a full trial on the merits because "[o]nce the case proceeds to trial, the full record developed in court supersedes" the prior record

  11. Section 12-820.01 - Absolute immunity

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-820.01   Cited 81 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Providing conditions for absolute immunity

  12. Section 30-801 - Definitions

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 30-801   Cited 4 times

    In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. "Electricity" or "electric service" means electric energy, electric capacity or electric capacity and energy. 2. "Public power entity": (a) Means any municipal corporation, city, town or other political subdivision that is organized under state law, that generates, transmits, distributes or otherwise provides electricity and that is not a public service corporation. (b) Does not include: (i) A city or town with a population of less than seventy-five

  13. Section 30-802 - [Repealed] Coordinated scheduling of generation or transmission

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 30-802   Cited 2 times

    A public power entity shall participate in and support an independent system operator, an independent system administrator or other efforts to coordinate scheduling of generation or transmission within this state or region. A.R.S. § 30-802 Repealed by L. 2022, ch. 191,s. 6, eff. 9/23/2022.

  14. Section 48-2309 - Qualifications of electors

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 48-2309   Cited 1 times

    A. No person shall be entitled to vote at any election held under the provisions of this chapter unless the person is a qualified district elector. In this chapter, a qualified district elector is a person who is otherwise qualified to vote for state officers under the general election laws of this state and who is either of the following: 1. The owner of record of qualified real property. 2. The trust voter for a qualified trust that is the owner of record of qualified real property. B. The owner

  15. Section 48-2334 - Definitions; procedures for participation by interested persons in proposed changes in electric rates

    Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 48-2334

    A. In this section, unless the context otherwise requires: 1. "Change in the standard electric rate schedule" means an increase or decrease or other modification of the rate blocks in, or a change in the method of calculating an escalation provision of, a standard electric rate schedule or the implementation of any new standard rate schedule. 2. "Interested persons" means either electors as set forth in section 48-2309 or purchasers of power from the district under standard electric rate schedules