Case law

Department of the Army v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

56 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 9, 1995

Because the United States has not clearly waived its immunity from suit for this monetary relief, we grant the petition for review, deny the application for enforcement, and vacate the disputed portion of the order under … The answer is clearly negative; the term “action” is simply not clear or specific enough to support such a waiver.

Broidy Capital Management LLC v. Nicolas Muzin

61 F.4th 984 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 10, 2023

“A foreign state will not be found to have explicitly waived its immunity unless it has clearly and unambiguously done so.” Wye Oak Tech., Inc. v. Republic of Iraq, 24 F.4th 686, 691 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). … Wye Oak Tech., 24 F.4th at 697 (finding “trial participation and post-trial argument” insufficient to establish an implied waiver of foreign sovereign  22 immunity); see also Est. of Fakhoury

United States v. Rapone, Anthony

131 F.3d 188 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 19, 1997

The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants on qualified immunity grounds, concluding that their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person *197 … The Court concluded that appellate review of qualified immunity dispositions must be conducted “in light of all relevant precedents, not simply those cited to, or discovered by, the district court.”

United States Information Agency v. Jan Krc

989 F.2d 1211 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 23, 1993

Although a claim for monetary damages would clearly be barred by sovereign immunity, see 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (h) (Federal Tort Claims Act does not waive sovereign immunity for “claims arising out of ... interference with contract … The USIA’s action was clearly “not improper under the circumstances.”

Harbury, Jennifer K. v. Deutch, John M.

244 F.3d 956 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 6, 2001

Even had Harbury made a colorable claim, the individual government defendants would be entitled to qualified immuni- ty because reasonable officials in their positions could have believed that under established law their … Cir. 2001) ("A constitution- al right was 'clearly established' at the time of the events in question only if '[t]he contours of the right [were] sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer would understand that what he

Michael James v. Gregory Lusby

499 F.2d 488 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 19, 1974

It is well-established law in this jurisdiction that exercise of the general authority to certify cases to courts of local jurisdiction rests in the sound discretion of the District Court. Gray v. … The standard to be applied by the trial court in certifying a case is similar to that in dismissal, and was clearly stated in St. Paul Indemnity Co. v.

Kennedy for President Committee and Edward M. Kennedy v. Federal Election Commission

734 F.2d 1558 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 15, 1984

At the same time, we think it is clearly unreasonable to presume that 100 percent of unqualified expenses are fairly attributable to federal matching funds. … After all, the candidate’s qualified expenditures are paid out of the commingled pool of federal and private monies.

Duane S. Marusa v. District of Columbia

484 F.2d 828 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 21, 1973

Carlson,, we expressed our reluctance to extend that immunity to encompass intentional torts. … Marusa also sought damages from DeMiers Investments, Inc., which operated a (now defunct) “singles” establishment known as “Wayne’s Luv.”

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Merrell Williams

62 F.3d 408 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 15, 1995

If the former qualifies as a “civil action” under the removal statute there is no reason to conclude that the latter does not. … Chief among these is the immunization from lawsuits, both civil and criminal.

In Re Oliver L. North (Haskell Fee Application)

74 F.3d 277 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 23, 1996

Reasonableness As we have often observed, the fee petitioner bears the burden of establishing all elements of his entitlement. See, e.g., Shultz, 8 F.3d at 852; Dutton, 11 F.3d at 1081 . … In Dutton, 11 F.3d at 1078-79 , we concluded that “an individual who would otherwise qualify as a ‘subject’ of an independent counsel investigation does not automatically lose that status (and his right to reimbursement of

Houston Lighting & Power Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Burlington Northern, Inc., Intervenor. Arizona Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Ry. Co., Intervenors

606 F.2d 1131 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 22, 1979

Such investments could qualify even though they would benefit other shippers using the line. HL&P J.A. at 48-49; AEPC J.A. at 59-60. … to filing the notice of intent to establish a capital incentive rate.

Boling v. U.S. Parole Comm'n

290 F. Supp. 3d 37 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 30, 2017

First, the law is well established that Congress has not waived the United States' immunity with respect to tort claims arising under the Constitution. … Circuit has established a three-part standard "for establishing the preclusive effect of a prior holding." Yamaha Corp. of Am. , 961 F.2d at 254 .

In Re United States of America v. Jane Kember and Morris Budlong, Mary Sue Hubbard, Henning Heldt, Richard Weigand, and Gregory Willardson

648 F.2d 1354 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 24, 1980

Superior Court, were established by the same sovereign and that prior to 1970, the U. S. … First, we note that the statement in McSurely is clearly dictum.

United States v. John R. Spicer

57 F.3d 1152 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 30, 1995

We cannot agree with a rule under which, through the alchemy of a settlement agreement, a fraudulent debtor may transform himself into a nonfraudulent one, and thereby immunize himself from the strictures of § 523(a)(2)(A … Although the subsequent settlement agreement alters the legal form of that obligation, it does not transmogrify its essential nature so as to immunize it from the command of § 523(a)(2)(A) that debt for money or property

Chaim Kaplan v. Hezbollah

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 20, 2018

The act-of-war exception thus does not qualify as a threshold issue that may be considered before establishing the court’s jurisdiction. … See Kramer, 481 F.3d at 791 (skipping over sovereign immunity issue); Chalabi, 543 F.3d at 728 (skipping over foreign sovereign immunity issue). But see FDIC v.

Scott v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

296 F. Supp. 3d 98 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 30, 2017

If the facts as alleged fail to establish that a plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, then a court must grant the defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See Am. Chemistry Council, Inc. v. U.S. … To claim this form of qualified immunity, the private contractor must assert "that (1) it was working pursuant to the authorization and direction of the federal government, and (2) the acts of which the plaintiff complained

John Cary Sims v. Central Intelligence Agency

642 F.2d 562 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 29, 1980

Exemption 1, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(1) (1976), immunizes from compulsory disclosure matters that are: (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national … in this case decided the second issue — whether there was an invasion of personal privacy sufficiently deep and severe to qualify under any circumstances as “clearly unwarranted.”

Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

784 F.3d 804 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 1, 2015

TATEL, Circuit Judge: The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) grants foreign states immunity from suit in American courts unless one of several enumerated exceptions applies. … II The FSIA “establishes a comprehensive framework for determining whether a court in this country, state or federal, may exercise jurisdiction over a foreign state.” Republic of Argentina v.

Lowe v. National Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc.

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.

K&D LLC v. Trump Old Post Office LLC

951 F.3d 503 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 28, 2020

The federal defense need only be “colorable,” not “clearly  5 sustainable.” Willingham v. Morgan, 395 U.S. 402, 407 (1969). … Second, he claimed absolute presidential immunity from personal liability. Because we find the first defense colorable, we need not address the President’s alternative argument based on presidential immunity.