§Why CasetextPricing

Tesla Motors, Inc. v. Johnson et al

BRIEF in support of MOTION to compel production of legislator documents 68

32 Cited authorities

  1. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

    421 U.S. 132 (1975)   Cited 2,038 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that FOIA does not compel agencies to write or create material to explain disclosed documents

  2. Everson v. Leis

    556 F.3d 484 (6th Cir. 2009)   Cited 1,941 times
    Holding "that a district court’s decision to hold in abeyance a motion seeking qualified immunity is immediately appealable unless that decision is related to the proper disposition of the motion" because otherwise "a district court [could] thwart interlocutory appeal by refusing to address qualified immunity"

  3. Trammel v. United States

    445 U.S. 40 (1980)   Cited 1,188 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because "[t]estimonial exclusionary rules and privileges contravene the fundamental principle that 'the public . . . has a right to every man's evidence,' . . . they must be strictly construed"

  4. Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.

    397 U.S. 137 (1970)   Cited 1,700 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that where a statute addresses "a legitimate local public interest, and its effects on interstate commerce are only incidental, it will be upheld unless the burden imposed on such commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits"

  5. Oregon Waste Sys., Inc. v. Dep. of Envt'l Qual. of Ore

    511 U.S. 93 (1994)   Cited 687 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a greater surcharge on disposal of in-state waste than on disposal of out-of-state waste facially discriminated against interstate commerce

  6. Matthews v. Jones

    35 F.3d 1046 (6th Cir. 1994)   Cited 1,718 times
    Holding police department is not an entity subject to suit under § 1983

  7. Dept. Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis

    553 U.S. 328 (2008)   Cited 298 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a discriminatory state law is “virtually per se invalid” and “will survive only if it advances a legitimate local purpose that cannot be adequately served by reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives”

  8. Gravel v. United States

    408 U.S. 606 (1972)   Cited 600 times
    Holding that the Speech or Debate Clause's legislative privilege prohibited questioning a Senator about one of his legislative acts; "the motives and purposes behind" the act; "communications between the Senator and his aides" related to the act; and his "preparation for" the act

  9. Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison

    520 U.S. 564 (1997)   Cited 275 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a nonprofit summer camp was engaged in commerce for purposes of the dormant Commerce Clause

  10. Comptroller of the Treasury of Maryland

    575 U.S. 542 (2015)   Cited 126 times   13 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Maryland violated the dormant aspect of the Commerce Clause by refusing to grant a tax credit for taxes that its residents paid to another state where Maryland also taxed the income that residents of other states earned from sources in Maryland

  11. Rule 26 - Duty to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 26   Cited 94,469 times   650 Legal Analyses
    Adopting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37

  12. Rule 45 - Subpoena

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 45   Cited 16,464 times   104 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person"

  13. Rule 501 - Privilege in General

    Fed. R. Evid. 501   Cited 4,124 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing that "in a civil case, state law governs privilege regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision"

  14. Section 4.553 - Subpoena as to statements made by legislator

    Mich. Comp. Laws § 4.553

    A member of the legislature shall not be subject to a subpoena for any matter involving statements made by the legislator pursuant to his or her duty as a legislator. MCL 4.553 1984, Act 27, Imd. Eff. 3/12/1984.

  15. Section 4.554 - Subpoena duces tecum

    Mich. Comp. Laws § 4.554

    The legislative files, recordings, tapes, records, memoranda, or written documents of a member of the legislature shall not be subject to a subpoena duces tecum in a civil action, contested case, or other administrative proceeding. This section shall not apply to the files, recordings, tapes, records, memoranda, or written documents of a committee, subcommittee, commission, or council of the legislature. MCL 4.554 1984, Act 27, Imd. Eff. 3/12/1984.