Legal Opinion
Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Michigan, Inc. v. Miller
District Court, E.D. Michigan
Decided September 21, 1998No. 98-73301-DTPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM ORDER AND OPINION
HOOD, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff Planned Parenthood Affiliates of Michigan (hereinafter “PPAM”) brought this Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Immediate Hearing seeking injunctive relief in connection with its Complaint for a Declaratory Judgment that Rule 169.39(b) of the Michigan Administrative Code is unconstitutional on its face. Rule 169.39(b) was promulgated by Defendant Candice Miller, Michigan Secretary of State, pursuant to her authority to implement the Michigan Campaign Finance Act. The Rule prohibits the use of a candidate’s name or…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Buckley v. ValeoSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Elrod v. BurnsSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- New York v. FerberSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hartford Ins Co of the Midwest v. Mich Catastrophic Claims AssnMichigan Supreme Court · 2009
- McConnell v. Federal Election CommissionDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2003
- McConnell v. Federal Election CommissionDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2003
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass'nMichigan Supreme Court · 2009
- United States Fidelity Ins v. Michigan Catastrophic Claims AssnMichigan Supreme Court · 2009