Case law

Transamerica Leasing, Inc. v. La Republica De Venezuela and Fondo De Inversiones De Venezuela

200 F.3d 843 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 8, 2000

In this interlocutory appeal, Venezuela and the FIV argue that they are immune from suit upon all counts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq., and that they are immune from suit … First, the sale of a portion of its fleet as part of a massive restructuring hardly qualifies as CAVN’s “day-to-day” business.

Tapp v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.

306 F. Supp. 3d 383 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 30, 2016

XI (establishing States's constitutional immunity from suit); see also Morris , 781 F.2d at 219 ("Congress has power to legislate for the District of Columbia and to create an instrumentality that is immune from suit."). … Wright & Miller, supra , § 1368 (explaining that "[i]f the affirmative defense clearly is established in the pleadings ... then a judgment on the pleadings may be appropriate[,]" but if "matter[s] outside the pleadings would

Montgomery v. Comey

300 F. Supp. 3d 158 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 5, 2018

Plaintiffs clearly have not carried their burden here. … at issue in this case clearly meet that standard.

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.

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.

James Clark v. D. Justin Taylor

627 F.2d 284 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 5, 1980

However, if this was a duty of the judge, rather than the clerk, it is clearly judicial in nature and hence protected by judicial immunity. … Hence, appellant has failed to establish that there is any distinguishing factor to his case that would breach the expansive protection provided defendants by the doctrine of judicial immunity.

KiSKA Construction Corp., U.S.A. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

321 F.3d 1151 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 11, 2003

along the tunnel alignment and within the tunnel heading to prevent” certain specified events from occurring) (emphasis added); id. § 228, ¶ 3.5(A) (“If the tunnel invert is below groundwater level, [KiSKA must] maintain qualified … As WMATA corx’ectly observes, General Provision No. 2 of the contx’act clearly stated that “[i]n [the] case of [a] discrepancy between Drawings and Specifications, the Specifications shall govern.” JA 755.

Hegna v. Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

908 F. Supp. 2d 116 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 10, 2012

is not entitled to immunity.” … Taken at face value, this test would clearly bar the plaintiffs’ claims.

The King's Garden, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America

498 F.2d 51 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 6, 1974

A given law might not establish a state religion but nevertheless be one “respecting” that end in the sense of being a step that could lead to such establishment * * *. Lemon v. … The question in this case is whether the Commission’s qualified exemption facially conforms to relevant statutes and the Constitution.

Wood v. Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps.

316 F. Supp. 3d 475 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 22, 2018

In order to overcome qualified privilege, Plaintiff would have had to establish "excessive publication or express malice." Curry v. Giant Food Co. , 522 A.2d 1283 , 1294 (D.C. 1987). … See Manbeck , 384 F.2d at 974 ("the fact that appellee was the union's attorney, rather than an officer or member, did not dissipate the immunity the privilege affords").

Fass v. Gray. Candell v. Gray

197 F.2d 587 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 15, 1952

description that the administrative ridings cited do not support appellants’ contention that the 1912 Act must be construed to confer an unlimited and unconditional retention or preference right in reduction in force cases, immune … The foregoing considerations establish that appellants derived no reassignment rights, under either the 1912 Act or the 1944 Act, which were not limited to a competitive group.

Panaiot Ignatiev v. United States

238 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 9, 2001

If then appellants were relying only on international and statutory law, the dismissal would clearly be appropriate. … It may be that there are no such Secret Service guidelines, or that a valid privilege prevents their disclosure, but neither has been established thus far.

Paul Dayton v. Czechoslovak Socialist Republic Joseph E. Stiassni v. Czechoslovak Socialist Republic

834 F.2d 203 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 8, 1987

Plaintiff-appellants cite two exceptions: the prescription on waiver of immunity, 28 U.S. … The Agreement, however, recognized a compensation obligation, not to all the world, but only to “nationals” of the United States, and the time reference for that term is not clearly stated in the Agreement; indeed, it is

Council on American Islamic Relations v. Ballenger

444 F.3d 659 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 11, 2006

“[T]he Attorney General’s certification that a federal employee was acting within the scope of his employment . . . does not conclusively establish as correct the substitution of the United States as defendant in place of … The proper test has two disjunctive parts: “To qualify as conduct of the kind he was employed to perform, the [defendant’s] actions must have either been ‘of the same general nature as that authorized’ or ‘incidental to the

In Re Kenneth L. Turner

14 F.3d 637 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 1, 1994

Subsection 2412(d)(1)(A) waives this immunity, but only to a limited degree. … A glance at the legislative history, however, reveals that, in amending 28 U.S.C. § 2679 (d), Congress intended to "establish[] legislative standards to govern the immunity of Federal employees who have allegedly committed

Plummer v. Dist. of Columbia

317 F. Supp. 3d 50 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 20, 2018

Defendants argue that Plummer has failed to show a constitutional violation or, alternatively, that the officers enjoy qualified immunity. See Defs.' Br. at 16-26. … Additionally, Plummer asserts a claim for municipal liability in Count V based on the same underlying constitutional violations, and municipalities do not enjoy qualified immunity.

United States v. John M. Poindexter

951 F.2d 369 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 8, 1992

Once a defendant demonstrates that he has previously testified under a grant of immunity about a matter relevant to the case against him, the prosecution has the burden of showing that its evidence is not tainted by establishing … More specifically, “corruptly influencing” a congressional inquiry does not at all clearly encompass lying to the Congress, which is, by way of contrast, clearly a violation of § 1001, the False Statements statute.

Committee on the Judiciary v. Donald McGahn, II

973 F.3d 121 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 31, 2020

On the merits, McGahn’s contention that he is absolutely immune from the Committee’s subpoena must fail. … Yet that is exactly the nature of McGahn’s absolute immunity claim.

Reuven Gilmore v. Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority

843 F.3d 958 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 13, 2016

In their pre-answer motion, Appellees argued that “Palestine [was] a state under U.S. and international law” and, therefore, they were entitled to sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). … just “because the motion said ‘sovereign immunity’ and did not articulate the words ‘personal jurisdiction.’”

United States v. Felipe De Diego

511 F.2d 818 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 16, 1975

Prosecutor has not met his burden of establishing that such immunity has not or will not taint the case.' … One of the affiants (Philip Bakes) clearly remembers reading the immunized testimony, but states that he does not, to his recollection, remember using it in any way.