Case law

Kartseva v. Department of State

37 F.3d 1524 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 28, 1994

Because we remand the constitutional quéstion, we do not now decide whether the Bivens claims can survive a claim of qualified immunity. 21 In the event, however, that the district court finds the existence of a clearly established … ] motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds can be resolved.”

Stewart, Sonya G. v. Evans, Donald L.

351 F.3d 1239 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 19, 2003

The court went on to rule that Fredericks and Taylor were in any event entitled to qualified immunity, because no clearly established Fourth Amendment right had been violat- ed. The court declined to permit discovery. … In addition, she argues that her Fourth Amendment right was clearly estab- lished — defeating any claim of qualified immunity — be- cause O’Connor v.

Josiah Haynesworth and Fred Hancock v. Frank P. Miller, Chief, Law Enforcement Section, Office of the Corporation Counsel, (Two Cases)

820 F.2d 1245 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 29, 1987

If Miller enjoys only qualified immunity for the conduct at issue, then additional pleadings are necessary to evaluate whether he is entitled to protection in this case. 159 Accordingly, if qualified immunity carries the … Qualified immunity protects "‘government officials performing discretionary functions ... insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Washington Annapolis Hotel Co. v. Riddle

171 F.2d 732 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 1, 1948

The Superior Court found, however, that the defendant had not established a defeasible immunity, and on appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court this ruling was affirmed. That court said: . … In view of the established law as outlined above, an analysis of the facts of the instant case clearly shows that there was no defeasible immunity involved here.

Rasul v. Myers

512 F.3d 644 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 11, 2008

It then concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from suit under Bivens because any constitutional right the detainees possessed was not clearly established at the time it was allegedly violated. … entitled to qualified immunity from suit pursuant to Harlow v.

Daniel Ellsberg v. John N. Mitchell

807 F.2d 204 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 5, 1986

Defendants claim that qualified immunity shields them from liability since the wiretap, having had a validating national security purpose did not violate clearly established law. … Later, also despite Young’s pending discovery motions, the District Court granted summary judgment to Mitchell on qualified immunity grounds against Young, finding that the “objective record thus establishes a valid [national

Bruno Mpoy v. Michelle Rhee

758 F.3d 285 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 15, 2014

“Under [qualified immunity] doctrine, courts may not award damages against a government official in his personal capacity unless ‘the official violated a statutory or constitutional right,’ and ‘the right was “clearly established … The question under the qualified immunity doctrine is whether the official violated a right that was “clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct,” and thus whether the defendants “could reasonably have believed

Apton v. Wilson

506 F.2d 83 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 16, 1974

But these considerations go to the showing an officer vested with a qualified immunity must make in support of “good faith belief;” they do not make the qualified immunity itself inappropriate. … The head of an executive department, no less than the chief executive of a state, is adequately protected by a qualified immunity.

Doe v. District of Columbia

796 F.3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 11, 2015

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … “To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, plaintiffs must show both [1] that an official ‘violated a constitutional right’ and [2] that ‘the right was clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Johnson v.

Butera v. District of Columbia

235 F.3d 637 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 9, 2001

Alternatively, the District of Columbia contends that the officers are enti- tled to qualified immunity because, even if Eric and Terry Butera could assert substantive due process rights, it was not clearly established … violates a clearly established right.

Roth, Pamela v. King, Rufus

449 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 9, 2006

Op. at 7, J.A. 85, making those appellants who helped establish the Family Court panel framework legislatively immune from all forms of relief. … As appellants aptly note, “the invalidity of a takings claim follows a fortiori from [appellees’] failure to establish any entitlement that would qualify as property under the Due Process Clause.

Cutchin v. Dist. of Columbia

369 F. Supp. 3d 108 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 27, 2019

Here, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless Cutchin shows the violation of a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … "Even if there is a genuine dispute about the reasonableness of an officer's use of force, he is protected by qualified immunity unless his force violated clearly established law." Hedgpeth v.

Dellums v. Powell

660 F.2d 802 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 24, 1981

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY OF DEFENDANT POWELL The District Court held that defendant Powell was entitled to only qualified immunity for his actions as Chief of the Capitol Police. 14 As a result, it denied his motion for judgment … A Qualified Immunity Standard Rejection of absolute immunity for defendant Powell’s actions hardly leaves him defenseless. Indeed, a standard of qualified immunity provides a formidable defense.

Anne W. Walker v. Honorable Ed Jones, Congressman of the United States

733 F.2d 923 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 1, 1984

Members of Congress may assert the same qualified immunity available to executive officials; officials can prevail on this ground if they establish that “their conduct [did] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … established constitutional right.

Smith ex rel. Smith v. Nixon

807 F.2d 197 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 5, 1986

In Halperin II, 807 F.2d at 188, we held that objective reasonableness of national security motivation is all that need be established to sustain that element of the qualified immunity defense consisting of the contention … There is no dispute that the challenged wiretap was illegal (albeit not in violation of clearly established law). See United States v.

Pollard v. District of Columbia

698 F. App'x 616 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 1, 2017

The district court properly dismissed Counts I, II, and IV of the complaint because the police officers are entitled to qualified immunity for those claims. … “[Qualified immunity protects police officers from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless they have violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Loumiet v. United States

315 F. Supp. 3d 349 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 5, 2018

Iqbal , the Supreme Court clearly articulated the concerns surrounding discovery in such cases: "The basic thrust of the qualified-immunity doctrine is to free officials from the concerns of litigation, including 'avoidance … The Supreme Court urges caution where discovery may entangle individuals potentially protected by qualified immunity.

Berry, Steven K. v. Funk, Sherman M.

146 F.3d 1003 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 14, 1998

court's order can be affirmed because all defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … Appellees maintain that Berry's allegations do not make out a Fourth Amendment violation, and alternatively, that they are entitled to qualified immunity on these claims as their conduct did not "violate clearly established

Kartseva v. Department of State

37 F.3d 1524 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 5, 1995

Because we remand the constitutional question, we do not now decide whether the Bivens claims can survive a claim of qualified immunity. 21 28 In the event, however, that the district court finds the existence of a clearly … ] motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds can be resolved."

Thorp v. Dist. of Columbia

327 F. Supp. 3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 30, 2018

Qualified Immunity Thorp next sets his sights on the qualified-immunity analysis in the prior Opinion. … The case went on to hold that qualified immunity should instead rely on "the objective reasonableness of an official's conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law."