Case law

Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic

646 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 20, 2011

Moreover, because Syria is not immune under the FSIA, no principle of sovereign immunity law upsets the parties’ respective burdens under Rule 60(b);  9 nor do oft cited ephemeral principles … The district court did not clearly err in finding that Syria received service of process under the FSIA.

Vietnam Veterans of America v. McNamara

201 F. App'x 779 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 22, 2006

’ alleged misconduct so that it could decide whether the officials were entitled to qualified immunity for such conduct. … immunity.

Moore, William G. v. United States

213 F.3d 705 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 2, 2000

Spartin, GAI's president, negotiated an immunity deal in return for his cooperation. … Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 430-31 (1976), extended only qualified immunity to prose- cutors acting in an investigatory capacity.2 660 F.2d at 806.

Charles B. Elgin, Sr., Individually and as Next Friend of John Elgin, a Minor v. District of Columbia

337 F.2d 152 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 20, 1964

Indeed, it -was clearly reflected in the court’s opinion in TJrow, supra. … They may or may not be established to the satisfaction of a court or jury after trial.

Mary Jane Keeney v. United States

218 F.2d 843 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 22, 1954

Thus the Charter and the Staff Rules of the United Nations establish, in my opinion, the privilege on which appellant relied. … In my own opinion there was clearly no deliberate and intentional refusal. The result of our several opinions is this. The conviction is reversed with instructions to grant a new trial.

Peter Odhiambo v. Republic of Kenya

764 F.3d 31 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 29, 2014

See 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2); see also id. § 1330(b) (establishing personal jurisdiction over any claim not subject to immunity under sections 1605-1607 in which the foreign sovereign has been served with process). … The complaint did not clearly allege when the bailment arose, and we noted that plaintiffs “never expressly allege[d] that the return of the artwork was to occur in the United States.” Id. at 601.

In Re Series 7 Broker Qualification Exam Scoring Litigation

548 F.3d 110 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 7, 2008

Defendants argue that such causes of action are impliedly preempted by federal law and, alternatively, that they are immune from suit based on regulatory immunity. … It is well established that “the question whether a certain state action is pre-empted by federal law is one of congressional intent.” Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 208 (1985).

Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Corporacion CIMEX, S.A. (Cuba)

111 F.4th 12 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 30, 2024

Dismissing such actions on immunity grounds would “effectively negate suits Congress has clearly authorized.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). … Congress “almost always” could write a provision more clearly. Id. Because Title III abrogates the defendants’ sovereign immunity, I would not decide whether the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act does so as well.

Otis Elevator Company v. Secretary of Labor and Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

921 F.2d 1285 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 18, 1990

An MSHA inspector determined that Otis’s mechanics were neither qualified under Mine Act regulations to perform electrical work nor supervised by someone who was so qualified. … The power to immunize an operator’s disregard for a regulation clearly applicable in a particular case is, in effect, the power to write a new regulation, and the Mine Act clearly vests that power with the Secretary.

United States v. James L. Sarvis, United States of America v. Irie E. Leonard

523 F.2d 1177 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 21, 1975

The jury’s attention was *1181 clearly drawn by name to the testimony of the two witnesses who were immunized, and the jury was told to receive that testimony with caution and to scrutinize it with care. … There clearly was no error in the trial judge’s failure to name Francis Salters explicitly as one of the accomplices whose testimony should be treated with care.

Noah Rosenkrantz v. Inter-American Development Bank

35 F.4th 854 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 3, 2022

Cir. 1983), which declined to read “an identical waiver provision” as “evincing an intent by the members of the Bank to establish a blanket waiver of immunity from every type of suit not expressly prohibited.” … that “[a]lthough the [Lutcher] court construed” section 3 “broadly enough to uphold its jurisdiction, the action clearly arose out of the Bank’s external lending activities,” namely “suits by the Bank’s borrowers,” when

Raven v. Sajet

334 F. Supp. 3d 22 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 19, 2018

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability for constitutional violations unless they violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Since the Free Speech Clause does not apply to government art decisions like this one, and no Fifth Amendment rights are at issue, the Defendants did not violate "clearly established" constitutional law, for all the reasons

GSS Group Ltd. v. National Port Authority

680 F.3d 805 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 25, 2012

The petition also relies on the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s jurisdictional provisions. … Because the Port Authority is wholly owned by the Liberian government, it qualifies as an “agency or instrumentality,” and thus a “foreign state” for subject-matter jurisdiction purposes.

David E. Jones v. Manuel Lujan, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Secretary of Interior

883 F.2d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 30, 1989

Because we find EAJA to thus be facially clear regarding Jones’ entitlement to fees, we reject the Government’s allegations that it is somehow immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. … There can be no sovereign immunity where Congress has unambiguously consented to waive immunity from suit by statute here, through EAJA section 2412(d)(1)(A).

Jayvee Brand, Inc. v. United States of America

721 F.2d 385 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 15, 1983

Clearly, violation of the statute setting the procedures by which the CPSC is to promulgate regulations is not the kind of tort which Congress intended to cover when it enacted the FTCA. … The Supreme Court has determined that although qualified immunity is the rule for executive personnel, certain offices and functional roles are entitled to absolute immunity. Harlow v.

American Federation Of Government Employees, Local 2544 v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

779 F.2d 719 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 14, 1986

And absent immunity, Reed clearly could face disciplinary action, as he had apparently failed to promptly report the misconduct of other patrol agents as required by INS internal regulations. … conferring the "immunity" cite as their authority materials which are completely inadequate to establish the existence of such a policy, the FLRA's conclusion that the purported grant of immunity negated any risk of discipline

Rosalie Simon v. Republic of Hungary

77 F.4th 1077 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 8, 2023

Accordingly, the “burden of proof in establishing the inapplicability of [the FSIA’s] exceptions is upon the party claiming immunity.” Transam. S.S. Corp. v. Somali Democratic Republic, 767 F.2d 998, 1002 (D.C. … Application of Weltover to the relevant facts as stipulated by the parties establishes that Hungary’s issuance of bonds in this case qualifies as “commercial activity” within the meaning of the FSIA.

Thompson v. Drug Enforcement Administration

492 F.3d 428 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 26, 2007

Michael Thompson has seven actions and appeals that could qualify as strikes. One is the case he seeks to appeal here—a suit against the U.S. … and standing), qualified immunity, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies, all of which (as we shall explain below) typically do not count as strikes.

Southwestern Power Administration v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

763 F.3d 27 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 22, 2014

It reasoned that section 215(b)(1) and section 215(e) work in tandem to establish an unambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity with regard to monetary penalties. We disagree. … At the least, the language fails to answer the question with requisite clarity to establish an unequivocal waiver of sovereign immunity where no waiver otherwise exists.

In Re Janet G. Mullins (Berry Fee Application)

91 F.3d 1516 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 20, 1996

Accordingly, Berry qualifies as a subject under the Act. On January 11, 1995, IC diGenova notified Berry by letter that he did not intend to seek charges against him. … a statute’s waiver of immunity beyond what a fair reading of the statute requires.