Case law

In Re: Sealed Case

131 F.3d 208 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 19, 1997

Attorney does certify, the employee is immune, the United States has any immunities unwaived under exceptions to the Federal Tort Claims Act, and, prior to Gutierrez de Martinez , the decision was unreviewable. … The Executive, not the courts of law, is best qualified to determine such matters.

Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President

1 F.3d 1274 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 13, 1993

To qualify as a record under the FRA, a document must satisfy a two-pronged test. … In this case, the agency heads clearly failed to discharge this obligation.

Richard Atchinson v. District of Columbia

73 F.3d 418 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 19, 1996

from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity, the district court denied Atchinson leave to amend and dismissed the section 1983 claims. … Even more unusual was the district court’s dismissal, early in the litigation, of claims against two city officials on the ground of qualified immunity, which is available only in individual capacity suits, as well as its

Khalil Semaan v. L. Quincy Mumford, Librarian of Congress

335 F.2d 704 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 18, 1964

Separation during qualifying period “a. When it becomes apparent during the qualifying period that the staff member is not fit for his position * * *, he may be separated from the Library without right of appeal.” . … Although the estoppel theory was not explicitly argued below, it was plainly encompassed by the pleadings and was clearly a “discernible circumstance” from the record before the court. See note 1 supra.

Hornbeck Offshore Transportation, LLC v. United States

569 F.3d 506 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 30, 2009

Clearly, then, the only basis for Hornbeck’s claim is a federal statute, not any state or local law. … To make the point more clearly: Would there still be a local cause of action without the federal statute? The answer is clearly “no.” If there is no local law under which “a private person!

Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran

734 F.3d 1175 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 1, 2013

Espinosa, the Supreme Court stated that it was “not persuaded that a failure to find undue hardship in accordance with [the Bankruptcy Code] is on par with the jurisdictional and notice failing that define void judgments that qualify … 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.

Vila v. Inter-American Investment Corp.

570 F.3d 274 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 19, 2009

Thus Vila clearly characterizes his e-mail contacts with Victor Moscoso as establishing that by August 4, 2003 Vila had provided his work to IIC and that IIC “refused” payment for that work, as opposed to “future work.” … Second, the district court was mistaken in its theory that Reed’s mention of a success fee somehow qualified the refusal.

Phillips v. Mabus

319 F.R.D. 36 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 4, 2016

immunity (relevant to Count II of the amended complaint). … Miller argue that in its October 23, 2012 order, the Court mandated that the parties would have until March 5, 2013 to conduct limited discovery on the issues of scope of employment and qualified immunity.

Roxann Franklin Mason v. Raymond Mabus, Jr.

742 F.3d 1051 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 14, 2014

Courts are required to read waivers of sovereign immunity narrowly and construe any ambiguities in the statutory language in favor of immunity. Id. … waiver of sovereign immunity.

Gulf Resources America, Inc. v. Republic of the Congo

370 F.3d 65 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 8, 2004

to immunity.’’ … Oil is produced, and the contracts, conventions, and establishment agreements applica- ble to such fields.’’

Paul R. Rosen, Esq. v. National Labor Relations Board

735 F.2d 564 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 6, 1984

Absolute judicial immunity applies both to suits by parties and non-parties. … Rosen clearly arose in the context of representing the Company.

Douglas v. Donovan

559 F.3d 549 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 17, 2009

Nor is it clear what level of certainty the court expects plaintiffs like Douglas to establish. … distinguish the Presidential Rank Award from other employment decisions that involve similar selection processes, the court emphasizes that the President, as the ultimate decision-maker, enjoys unfettered discretion and is immune

Daskalea v. District of Columbia

227 F.3d 433 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 8, 2000

A government official sued under section 1983 has available to her the defense of qualified immunity, a defense unavailable in an official- capacity suit. … By that time it was too late for Moore to hire separate counsel, to proffer a defense of qualified immunity, or to introduce evidence that her personal assets did not approach $5 million.

American Federation of Government Employees, Afl-Cio v. Samuel K. Skinner, Secretary Department of Transportation

885 F.2d 884 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 8, 1989

New York Univ., 666 F.2d 761 , 776-77 (2d Cir.1981) (concluding that plaintiff must bear the ultimate burden of showing “that in spite of the handicap he is qualified and ... that he is at least as well qualified as other … These cases appear fully consistent with the line of cases under section 1983 which place upon the defendant the burden of establishing the defense of qualified immunity. See, e.g., Anderson v.

Del. Riverkeeper Network v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm'n

895 F.3d 102 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 10, 2018

The Supreme Court has established several guideposts bearing on when a state-created right or benefit qualifies as “property” for due-process purposes. … In light of Dugan, FERC’s funding structure is clearly constitutional.

Morton H. Halperin v. Department of State

565 F.2d 699 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 16, 1977

II FOIA’s first exemption immunizes from the Act’s mandatory disclosure provisions those matters that are *703 (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest … The record does not clearly establish whether these reporters had attended the December 3 conference, or had been invited but had not attended, or had simply not been invited. 4 .

Velikonja, Maria v. Gonzales, Alberto

466 F.3d 122 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 17, 2006

The District Court properly granted summary judgment on Velikonja’s First Amendment retaliation claim, Count V of her first complaint, because Velikonja introduced no evidence establishing a causal link between her speech … Moreover, even if there were such a link, Velikonja’s claim to money damages would be barred by the principle of sovereign immunity. Clark v. Library of Congress, 750 F.2d 89, 102-04 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

Eric G. Hall and Hall Enterprises, Inc. v. Ann D. McLaughlin Secretary of Labor

864 F.2d 868 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 13, 1989

While a foreign-born Bill Cosby might well fit into this latter category, Eric Hall clearly does not. 9 Rather, Eric Hall falls under *876 the regular “qualified” test. … In the language of the regulations, the employer’s application for certification must clearly show that the "job opportunity has been and is clearly open to any qualified U.S. worker.” 20 C.F.R. § 656.20 (c)(8).

Kramer, Mark Lee v. Rumsfeld, Donald

481 F.3d 788 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 6, 2007

We have considerable doubt whether an interpretation of the limits of Rule 60(b)(6) qualifies as an exercise of a court’s law-declaring power as Steel Company used the concept, as the scope of Rule 60(b)(6) is far removed … Although the failure to request an order of “employment” here may not have been strategic in the strictest sense of the term, it was clearly a litigation choice that “turn[ed] out to be improvident” and one from which we

COMSAT Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission

283 F.3d 344 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 22, 2002

Cir. 1999); 22 U.S.C. s 288 note (Public International Organizations Entitled to Enjoy Certain Privi- leges, Exemptions, and Immunities); id. s 288a(b) (establish- ing immunity for certain international organizations … Clearly, the Commission might reasonably endeavor to prevent such cross-subsidization. In response, COMSAT first argues that COMSAT I pre- cludes the Commission from recovering signatory-related costs.