Case law

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.

Paul Bame v. Todd Dillard

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 29, 2011

Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Ortiz v. … Most notably, in deciding whether for purposes of qualified immunity the law was clearly established in 2002, the majority fails to distinguish, as established by Harlow and its progeny, between the role of the court to determine

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.”

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

Mykola Ivanenko v. Viktor Yanukovich

995 F.3d 232 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 23, 2021

It is the defendant’s burden to establish sovereign immunity, “including that ‘the plaintiff’s allegations do not bring its case within a statutory exemption to immunity.’” Id. (quoting Phoenix Consulting Inc. v. … A foreign state explicitly waives its sovereign immunity in a treaty or contract only if it “clearly and unambiguously” agrees to suit. World Wide Minerals, Ltd. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, 296 F.3d 1154, 1162 (D.C.

Oscarson v. Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms

550 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 12, 2008

Forsyth, addressing officials’ qualified immunity—an immunity that was itself entirely a judicial creation. 472 U.S. at 524-30. … Id.  7 Although this case concerns federal sovereign immunity rather than qualified immunity, we cannot imagine why the Johnson principles would not apply with equal force to the immunity

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."

Wuterich v. Murtha

562 F.3d 375 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 14, 2009

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985) (same for qualified immunity); Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 742-43 (1982) (same for absolute presidential immunity); Kilburn v. … As explained below in Part C, Wuterich clearly has failed to meet even this minimal burden.

Daniel Ellsberg, v John N. Mitchell

709 F.2d 51 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 7, 1983

Under Harlow , officials are entitled to qualified immunity “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.” 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . … defendant was entitled to qualified immunity under Harlow.); Sampson v.

Sanders v. District of Columbia

16 F. Supp. 2d 10 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 10, 1998

Government officials are protected by qualified immunity when they perform discretionary functions and “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … Accordingly, Barry and Soulsby’s motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds is denied. H.

Estate Of Anthony Sean Phillips, Sr.

455 F.3d 397 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 1, 2006

We conclude that the district court erred in denying Edwards qualified immunity because the Firefighters did not allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right; that is, even if Edwards's failure to remedy … II. 7 Qualified immunity under section 1983 shields a state or local official from personal liability unless his action violated a "clearly established statutory or constitutional right[ ] of which a reasonable person would

Doris Andrews and Otis Andrews v. Thomas H. Wilkins, Individually and in His Official Capacity

934 F.2d 1267 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 31, 1991

Qualified immunity is available to federal and state officials charged with constitutional torts so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … Accordingly, the claimants made out a valid claim for a constitutional tort, against which the Deputy lacked qualified immunity.

Melodi Navab-Safavi v. Broadcasting Board of Govenors

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 1, 2011

Legal Background Appellant’s motion for dismissal is rooted in the well- established doctrine of qualified immunity. … The Board asserts its qualified immunity, but we are unable to determine without an evidentiary record whether any act it committed in defense of those functions constituted a violation of clearly established rights, or even

Rasul v. Myers

512 F.3d 644 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 24, 2009

immunity shields the defendants because the asserted rights were not clearly established at the time of plaintiffs’ detention. … The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability to the extent their alleged misconduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Thorp v. Dist. of Columbia

319 F. Supp. 3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 24, 2018

Even should he succeed, "the protection of qualified immunity is available if 'a reasonable officer could have believed that [his or her actions were] lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officers … Even assuming arguendo that it was, qualified immunity would apply.

James Dorsey v. United States Department of Labor

41 F.3d 1551 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 16, 1994

The federal government’s waiver of sovereign immunity must be “unequivocally expressed” and the statutory provision containing the expression must “establish unambiguously that the waiver extends to monetary claims.” … The three representatives and two senators, rather than expressing themselves clearly on the subject, uttered not a word about relinquishing the government’s immunity from damages.

Paul C. Murray v. Theodore M. Gardner, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation

741 F.2d 434 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 14, 1984

Under the Harlow standard for official immunity, if "the law was not clearly established at the time the contested conduct occurred, the inquiry ceases.” Zweibon v. Mitchell, 720 F.2d 162, 168 (D.C.Cir.1983). … The essence of qualified immunity is the necessity of protecting government officials from charges that they knowingly violated standards that were in fact unknowable.

Laura Elkins v. DC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 10, 2012

Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … The district court denied Williams-Cherry qualified immunity on the ground that it has long been clearly established that seizing items based on a warrant that does not authorize such seizure is unconstitutional.

Diag Human S.E. v. Czech Republic - Ministry of H

824 F.3d 131 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 31, 2016

Additionally, the district court concluded the Czech Republic had not waived its sovereign immunity under the terms of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(1). … “Commercial” merely means “matters which have a connection to commerce,” and the Framework Agreement is clearly connected to commerce. Any “argument to the contrary will not sell.” Belize Soc. Dev.

Intl Actn Ctr v. United States

365 F.3d 20 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 16, 2004

Merits Qualified immunity protects government officials ‘‘from lia- bility for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … If the court establishes the violation of a constitutional right, it must then ‘‘proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations.’’ Id. (quotation omitted).