Case law

Michael McCarthy Arthur Waskow v. Richard G. Kleindienst

741 F.2d 1406 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 17, 1984

that they were entitled only to qualified immunity. … In a memorandum opinion, the District Court held that the federal defendants’ actions were within the scope of their qualified immunity.

Leonard v. United States Department of Defense

598 F. App'x 9 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 20, 2015

Leonard does not challenge the district court’s holding that his request for damages is barred by sovereign immunity. See Leonard, 38 F.Supp.3d at 104 n. 2. … 3 seek[s] declaratory and injunctive relief, past injuries alone are insufficient to establish standing. Rather, [the plaintiff] must show he is suffering an ongoing injury or faces an immediate threat of injury.”

In Re Sealed Case

551 F.3d 1047 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 6, 2009

Code clearly answers this question in the affirmative. … True enough, but the Privacy Act clearly waives sovereign immunity for improper disclosures by agencies, § 552a(g), and expressly defines “agency” as including military departments, § 552(f)(1).

Alan Philipp v. Federal Republic of Germany

894 F.3d 406 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 10, 2018

For purposes of this appeal, however, Germany concedes that the forced sale qualifies as a “tak[ing],” id. at 28 n.12, and it offers no reason why a taking by forced sale cannot qualify as a genocidal taking. … In doing so, the court distinguished NML Capital, holding that “defendants need not rely on . . . the FSIA,” but may “invoke the well-established rule that exhaustion of domestic remedies is preferred in international law

In Re Investigation Before the April 1975 Grand Jury. Appeal of Sol Z. Rosen and Local 6 of the Newspaper and Graphic Communication Union

531 F.2d 600 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 3, 1976

This familiar and established procedure was available to the Government when it found itself confronted with “legally unwarranted” assertions of the privilege against self-incrimination. … Cooperation in such circumstances with the United States Attorney would be in the interests of one set of clients — those witnesses willing to testify — but clearly not in the best interests of the union.

Duberry v. District of Columbia

824 F.3d 1046 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 3, 2016

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act establishes the right of “qualified law enforcement officers,” both active and retired, to carry a concealed weapon in the United States upon meeting certain conditions. Pub. … Third, the LEOSA imposes a mandatory duty on the states to recognize the right it establishes.

In Re: Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan (Lewinsky Fee Application)

352 F.3d 437 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 30, 2003

The Subject Requirement While the whole of Lewinsky’s fees will be disallowed for failure to meet the “but for” requirement of the Act, we would not reach that question if she did not qualify under the subject requirement … We doubt whether she has established even that; but even if she had, it would not be sufficient.

Oveissi v. Islamic Republic of Iran

573 F.3d 835 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 28, 2009

In that year, revolutionaries deposed the Shah and established an Islamic Republic. … The assassination of Gholam Oveissi clearly qualifies as an extrajudicial killing attributable to the Iranian government; “Iran has been designated a state sponsor of terrorism continuously since January 19, 1984, one month

United States v. Exxon Corp.

94 F.R.D. 246 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 30, 1981

The court’s August 6,1980, memorandum opinion established as the law of this case that any documents pertinent to Exxon’s defense of good faith are discoverable. … Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574, 581 (E.D.Wash.1975), perhaps the most exhaustive treatment of this subject, the court held that by invoking a defense of qualified immunity in a section 1983 case the defendant impliedly waived any privilege

Douglas McKay Secretary of the Interior v. L. C. Wahlenmaier

226 F.2d 35 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 21, 1955

One of the eases the Secretary cites in support of his claim to virtually complete immunity from judicial scrutiny is Shepley v. Cow-an, 1875, 91 U.S. 330 , 23 L.Ed. 424 . … Quite clearly, the courts lack power to do this. See Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp., 1949, 337 U.S. 682 , 69 S.Ct. 1457 , 93 L.Ed. 1628 .

Duehay v. Acacia Mut. Life Ins. Co.

105 F.2d 768 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 29, 1939

“Its sole purpose was to declare to the several States, that whatever those rights, as you grant or establish them to your own citizens, or as you limit or qualify, or impose restrictions on their exercise, the same, neither … upon its own citizens, also in terms confer the same privilege or immunity upon citizens of other states. 19 Blake v.

In Re Sealed Case

494 F.3d 139 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 20, 2007

Here, however, the district court rejected Huddle’s claim of qualified immunity, reasoning that “Horn’s allegations could constitute a violation of a clearly established constitutional right” and that “a jury could reasonably … The Ellsberg majority speculated this “serious injustice” might be ameliorated by “recent developments” in the doctrine of qualified immunity. Id.

Patrick D. Dant v. District of Columbia

829 F.2d 69 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 11, 1987

Similarly, swearing to a criminal complaint is an integral part of the police function and, therefore, is clearly “governmental.” … That alleged decision, unlike the decision to arrest, clearly was not taken in the course of police functions. 2.

National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides v. Lee M. Thomas, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides v. Environmental Protection Agency

828 F.2d 42 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 15, 1987

Petitioners clearly have not attained this objective; the interim tolerance remains in effect as a result of EPA's having reached a reasoned determination that such a tolerance was necessary to maintain an "adequate, wholesome … In fact, only last Term, the Court invoked this principle in holding that a party who obtained a favorable declaration of rights but lost his claim for damages because of defendants' immunity was not a "prevailing party"

Industrial Safety Equipment Association, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency

837 F.2d 1115 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 19, 1988

Second, publication of the Guide, which favors respirators that offer the maximum protection against asbestos, establishes no rule that the regulated industry must obey. … [but rather] *1120 only announces what the agency seeks to establish as policy”). 9 .

Agudas Chasidei Chabad of United States v. Russian Federation

19 F.4th 472 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 3, 2021

Chabad Chasidism is a religious movement that traces its roots to the 18th century when Rabbi Schneur Zalman established religious and educational activities in Russia. … There are two requirements for establishing appellate jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

Muhammad v. United States

300 F. Supp. 3d 257 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 7, 2018

Muhammad's allegations fail to establish that he was excluded from, denied the benefits of, or discriminated against within any "program or activity" for which he was otherwise qualified. … On its face, neither constitutes a government program that Muhammad was qualified to access.

Cicippio-Puleo v. Islamic Republic of Iran

353 F.3d 1024 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 16, 2004

Under the FSIA, foreign states enjoy immunity from suit in U.S. courts unless Congress waives immunity under an enumerated exception. … Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court has applied the distinc- tion between immunity and liability in interpreting the FSIA itself, explaining that ‘‘[t]he language and history of the FSIA clearly establish that the Act was not

Heller, Ehrman, White & MacAuliffe v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior of the United States

992 F.2d 360 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 18, 1993

The amount to be paid to those on the settlement roll depends on which of HYSA’s three tribal membership options a given individual qualifies for and chooses. … In our view, exclusive jurisdiction over the law firms’ suit is clearly vested in the Claims Court.

McKesson Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran

52 F.3d 346 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 14, 1995

Even insubstantial effects qualify under § 1605(a)(2) so long as they are not “purely trivial.” Id. Whether effects were foreseeable is beside the point. … The discovery order does not qualify for such treatment. It is not independently appealable.