Case law

Tommy Shaw v. Library of Congress

747 F.2d 1469 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 13, 1984

immunity. . … Some have done so in the context of a statute not clearly or even apparently naming the United States as potentially subject to its provisions. E.g., Holly v.

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.

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.

In Re Oliver L. North (Gadd Fee Application)

12 F.3d 252 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 7, 1994

On or about July 29, 1987, Gadd’s counsel was able to secure for him a grant of immunity. … Although Gadd claims he remained at risk of criminal prosecution subsequent to receiving immunity, we do not find that he was under such reasonable apprehension of prosecution that he qualified as a “subject” under the fee

Bathiard v. Islamic Republic of Iran

317 F. Supp. 3d 134 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 29, 2018

To prevail on such a motion, a plaintiff must establish her right to relief "by evidence satisfactory to the court." 28 U.S.C. § 1608 (e). … Rather, in their view, "Congress extended no special treatment on this issue to a defaulting sovereign and clearly contemplated that none be given." Id. at 3 .

I.T. Consultants, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan

351 F.3d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 16, 2003

before ruling on sovereign immunity. … Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 307 (1996) (‘‘[A]n order rejecting the defense of qualified immunity at either the dismissal stage or the summary judgment stage is a ‘final’ judgment subject to immediate appeal.’’).

Medical Imaging & Technology Alliance v. Library of Congress

103 F.4th 830 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 7, 2024

Thus, “we … require … that the scope of Congress’ waiver be clearly discernable from the statutory text in light of traditional interpretive tools.” Id. … Cir. 1994) (noting that Congress clearly subjected the Sentencing Commission to the APA’s notice and comment provisions in the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984).

Jones v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

205 F.3d 428 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 17, 2000

Sovereign Immunity We first consider WMATA's contention that state entities (including WMATA) are immune under the Eleventh Amend- ment from ADEA liability. … Because the court's findings of pretext and of retali- ation as to the promotion claim are supported by the evi- dence, they are not clearly erroneous.

Wichita & Affiliated Tribes v. Hodel

788 F.2d 765 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 18, 1986

There is no doubt that the Wichitas and the Delawares so qualify in this case. … Given this principle, litigation against the government would clearly affect the absent tribes.

Alan Philipp v. Federal Republic of Germany (ORDER IN SLIP OPINION FORMAT)

925 F.3d 1349 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 18, 2019

The international law of foreign sovereign immunity cuts in the same direction. … , and torture of Nelson) could not qualify as commercial under the restrictive theory.

Moore v. Hartman

571 F.3d 62 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 7, 2009

With respect to these claims, the postal inspectors moved for summary judgment on the retaliatory prosecution claim on the theory that they enjoyed qualified immunity because probable cause supported Moore’s prosecution. … We affirmed the district court’s decision and rejected the inspectors’ qualified immunity defense finding that, under the law of this Circuit, government officials were barred from bringing charges they would not have pursued

National Treasury Employees Union v. Alan K. Campbell, Chairman, United States Civil Service Commission

589 F.2d 669 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 14, 1978

The Act gives the Civil Service Commission authority to contract with qualified insurance carriers to provide various types of health insurance plans, 5 U.S.C. § 8902 (a), and states: “Rates charged under health benefits … Having established that individual federal employees have standing, it remains only to ensure that NTEU has standing derivatively as a representative of those employees.

Bainbridge Fund Ltd. v. Republic of Argentina

102 F.4th 464 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 24, 2024

non- diplomatic property where the “execution relates to a judgment establishing rights in property.” … 11 explicitly waived its immunity unless it has clearly and unambiguously done so.”

Lazaro Perez and Migdalia Perez, Individually and as Parents and Natural Guardians of Vladimir Perez, a Minor v. The Bahamas, a Foreign State

652 F.2d 186 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 28, 1981

. § 1330 (1976), which is predicated upon the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-1611 (1976). The FSIA exception relied upon by Appellant is clearly inapplicable to this case. … The District Court construed our statute to hold that The Bahamas was immune from suit since Appellant had failed to show how the facts of the case triggered any of the statutory exceptions to sovereign immunity.

Metropolitan Washington Chapter, Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc. v. DC

62 F.4th 567 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 14, 2023

The Workforce Intermediary Establishment and Reform of First Source Amendment Act of 2011, D.C. Law 19- 84, 58 D.C. Reg. 11,170 (2011) (codified at D.C. Code § 2-  3 219.01 et seq.). … In its opening brief, Metro Washington appears to disclaim any argument that this case qualifies under an “exception” to the rule against third-party standing. Appellant’s Br. 13.

Frisby v. United States

38 App. D.C. 22 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 2, 1912

The utterance, therefore, was essential to establish the commission of the crime charged. … Without it, the crime of forgery could not have been established or even charged against the defendant.

In re Papandreou

139 F.3d 247 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 10, 1998

The infliction of those burdens may compromise it just as clearly as would an ultimate determination of liability. … Maritime Int’l Nominees Establishment v. Guinea, 693 F.2d 1094, 1109 (D.C.Cir.1983).

Woodruff, Phillip v. Peters, Mary

482 F.3d 521 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 6, 2007

The DOT sent Woodruff notice of the FAD on June 12, but nothing in the record establishes when Woodruff received this notice. … Cir. 1984) (en banc) (refusing to order summary judgment prior to discovery, as it would be “clearly unjust for the appellate court to direct the issuance of summary judgment” unless the issue “was clearly framed by the proceed

Konah v. District of Columbia

915 F. Supp. 2d 7 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 3, 2013

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. … Courts employ a two-step inquiry to determine whether qualified immunity applies, looking (1) at whether a constitutional right was violated and (2) whether that right was clearly established. See Saucier v.

United States Servicemen's Fund v. Eastland

488 F.2d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 30, 1973

Appellants are seeking to establish a privileged status not provided for by the law. … The Court clearly implied that the restraint on the courts was not absolute any more than was the First Amendment right absolute.