Case law

Harry Kenneth Clark v. Library of Congress

750 F.2d 89 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 24, 1984

In establishing the Mt. … Since this is not a Bivenstype action, we need not address the question of qualified immunity. 31 .

Johnson v. Dist. of Columbia

927 F.3d 539 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 25, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability if their conduct  12 “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “Although the Supreme Court’s decisions do ‘not require a case directly on point for a right to be clearly established,’ for purposes of qualified immunity, ‘existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional

Belhas v. Ya'Alon

515 F.3d 1279 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 15, 2008

An individual qualifies for this immunity when he acts in his official capacity for the state. See Jungquist, 115 F.3d at 1027 . … To suppose that the sovereign’s immunity protecting the individual official in the performance of his sovereign’s business vanishes the moment he resigns, retires, or loses an election is to establish that he had no immunity

Griggs v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

232 F.3d 917 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 1, 2000

In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that a police officer is constrained by both regulations and clearly established policies and stan- dards such that there is no need to be concerned that tort liability for … issue of Officer Hay- mans' entitlement to absolute immunity, we do not reach the issue of any claim that he may have to qualified immunity.

King David and Virginia C. David v. Sheldon Cohen

407 F.2d 1268 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 10, 1969

It is well established that public officers are immune from civil suits for money damages for negligent, non-ministerial acts committed by them while acting within the scope of their au *1271 thority and in discharge of their … These cases generally do not qualify the immunity upon the absence of a proven claim of malice on the part of the official because “it is impossible to know whether the claim is well founded until the case has been tried,

Rodriguez v. Shulman

844 F. Supp. 2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 21, 2012

Qualified Immunity In addition, qualified immunity bars claims against public officials for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Compl., ¶¶ 49, 56, 57, violate a clearly established constitutional right. All claims against federal and state officials relating to Isidoro’s disbarment, accordingly, are barred by qualified immunity. *13 5.

Joseph C. Spagnola, Jr. v. William Mathis, (Two Cases) Joseph C. Spagnola, Jr. v. William Mathis

809 F.2d 16 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 6, 1987

It concluded that federal officials would be granted immunity only if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Appellants cannot plausibly suggest that a reasonable person would not find these rights to be “clearly established.”

Briggs v. Goodwin

569 F.2d 10 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 1, 1977

The fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial." 17 80 The decision whether qualified or absolute immunity is appropriate … Where the common law had established a qualified immunity for the official, the Court has maintained that standard in the § 1983 actions as well: Pierson v. Ray, supra (policemen); Wood v.

Burns v. Levy

373 F. Supp. 3d 149 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 14, 2019

With the passage of the Act, Section 44-802 clearly expanded the peer review privilege by extending immunity to those sharing information with any of the three categories of entities in Section 44-801(6). … Air Force entities qualifies as a peer review body under Section 44-801(6), Defendants are not entitled to immunity under the peer review privilege of Section 44-802.

Flythe Ex Rel. Estate of Flythe v. District of Columbia

791 F.3d 13 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 19, 2015

clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Ct. 2012, 2023 (2014) (“An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged

Fuller-Avent v. United States Probation Office

226 F. App'x 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 30, 2006

Government officials enjoy qualified immunity where their conduct has not violated a “clearly established statutory or constitutional right[ ] of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … A court undertaking the qualified immunity inquiry first determines “whether the plaintiff has alleged the deprivation of an actual constitutional right.” Wilson v.

Firebird Global Master Fund II Ltd. v. Republic of Nauru

915 F. Supp. 2d 124 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 15, 2013

Generally, with regard to express waivers under this provision, “[a] foreign sovereign will not be found to have waived its immunity unless it has clearly and unambiguously done so.” World Wide Minerals, Ltd. v. … Similarly, in this case, Nauru issuing bonds qualifies as a commercial activity. However, this exception also requires that the act have “cause[d] a direct effect in the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(2).

Mendaro v. World Bank

717 F.2d 610 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 27, 1983

that Article VII section 3 constitutes a broad waiver of immunity from all suits commenced in a court of competent jurisdiction located in specified territories, subject to two clearly expressed exceptions: the Bank is absolutely … It is unlikely that a waiver of immunity from employee actions is necessary to attract highly qualified staff members (see Articles of Agreement, supra note 2, at art.

Morgan v. U.S. Parole Comm'n

304 F. Supp. 3d 240 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 4, 2016

Morgan has not identified any other applicable waiver of the sovereign immunity bar, and thus he has clearly failed to carry his burden of establishing that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over his claims for monetary … Fitzgerald , 457 U.S. 800 , 819, 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) (qualified immunity protects only those officials who have acted in an objectively reasonable manner).

William H. Apton v. Jerry v. Wilson (Chief of Police) Roger S. Kuhn v. Jerry v. Wilson, Individually and as Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department

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. … A determination whether the defendants' qualified immunity shields the acts at issue in this case requires a more complete record.

Alan McSurely and Margaret McSurely v. John K. McClellan Thomas Ratliff, Individually and as Sometime Commonwealth Attorney for Pike County Kentucky

753 F.2d 88 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 18, 1985

the qualified immunity defense. … The Senate defendants did not violate any “clearly established” fourth amendment rights and thus are immune from civil liability for their investigative activity.

Kalka, Ben v. Hawk, Kathleen

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 23, 2000

Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 841 n.5 (1998), calling it the "better approach" because, if courts "always" ruled first on qualified immunity when no clearly established constitutional right existed, "standards of official conduct … B To repeat, qualified immunity shields these defendants from liability for civil damages if their actions were objective- ly reasonable, as measured in light of the legal rules that were "clearly established" at

Paul Lawrence v. Vernon D. Acree

665 F.2d 1319 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 28, 1981

concerning defendants’ official immunity is whether it is to be absolute or qualified. … The Court held that such officials were generally entitled only to qualified immunity. 438 U.S. at 507 , 98 S.Ct. at 2911 .

Iris N. McKinney v. Charles A. Whitfield

736 F.2d 766 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 15, 1984

Under established precedent, Whitfield unquestionably would be entitled to absolute immunity from common law tort liability for certain conduct taken in the course of administering the FAA’s “furlough” plan. 18 However, Whitfield … Federal law enforcement officers, like their state counterparts, may claim only qualified immunity from suits alleging constitutional violations. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed.

Nasrin Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran

782 F.3d 9 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 3, 2015

While the FSIA establishes a general rule granting foreign sovereigns immunity from the jurisdiction of United States courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1604, that grant of immunity is subject to a number of exceptions, see id. §§ 1605- … Immunity under the FSIA therefore applies to all defendants. In a final effort to establish subject-matter jurisdiction, plaintiffs invoke the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350.