Case law

John Doe v. John L. McMillan

459 F.2d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 26, 1972

Official immunity has not been restricted to those in high government positions. … Since the House District Committee’s enabling resolution was clearly valid, as appellants have conceded, the holdings in these cases are inapposite to the present situation.

Christopher Beaty, Jr. v. Fair Acres Geriatric Center

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 5, 2022

Subsection (a) establishes the immunity from suit and sets out the scope of the protection; subsection (b) explains the role and requirements of the HHS Secretary’s declaration triggering the Act; subsection (c) defines “ … Relatedly, we are skeptical that Congress intended to create a revolutionary new appellate review system without clearly so stating.

Colvin v. Syrian Arab Republic

363 F. Supp. 3d 141 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 1, 2019

If the foreign state is not immune, a plaintiff can establish personal jurisdiction over the defendant if the plaintiff executes service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1608 . See 28 U.S.C. § 1330 (b). … Here, the defendant's conduct falls within the "state sponsor of terrorism" exception to immunity as set forth in Section 1605(A), and plaintiffs have established personal jurisdiction through service.

DirecTV, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

837 F.3d 25 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 16, 2016

Under Hormel, that is, the Act does immunize disloyalty in a third-party appeal when it is related to-an ongoing employment dispute. … Endicott of course did not establish that all conduct amounting to disloyalty automatically affords grounds for discharge: Endicott came after Hormel, in which we had already established that third-party appeals, even if

Hwang, Geum Joo v. Japan

413 F.3d 45 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 28, 2005

As explained below, we agree with the latter argument and therefore do not address the issue of sovereign immunity. The appellants, however, citing Steel Co. v. … Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998), contend that “[b]efore reaching [the] political question [doctrine], this [c]ourt must establish jurisdiction” under the FSIA. We turn first to that issue. A.

Waldo Frank v. Christian A. Herter, Secretary of State

269 F.2d 245 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 6, 1959

The second phase of the Secretary’s decision, that dealing with the manner of selection of the correspondents to be afforded travel privileges to China’s mainland, however is not similarly immune to judicial review. … But obviously the Secretary could not permit every United States citizen so qualified to travel to Communist China in light of complex political factors so well described by Judge Pret-tyman in Worthy v. Herter.

Murray Drabkin v. District of Columbia, Murray Drabkin, Trustee v. District of Columbia

824 F.2d 1102 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 24, 1987

The second sentence clarifies the voidability of preferential federal tax payments by the waiver of sovereign immunity in 11 U.S.C. § 106 (c). … The House Report had indicated that sovereign immunity might prevent trustees from recovering preferences in the possession of the government.

In Re Grand Jury Proceedings, George Gordon Liddy

506 F.2d 1293 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 10, 1974

Thus, even assuming Liddy was a target or potential defendant before the Watergate grand jury, that he was granted use and derivative use immunity and had counsel available for consultation satisfied any requirements established … However, the phrase “held to answer” in the Fifth Amendment clearly means “brought to trial” or “prosecuted.”

Emory v. United Air Lines, Inc.

720 F.3d 915 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 21, 2013

Mootness Memo at 4 (highlighting the sovereign immunity issues in Adams where “no former, current, or potential air- carrier employer is a defendant”). … According to the first Count, United knowingly or recklessly advanced an “unlawful interpretation of the Age 65 Act . . . when the plaintiffs clearly met the exception.”

National Federation of Federal Employees, Local 1745 v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

828 F.2d 834 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 18, 1987

The proposal’s restraint in advocating criteria for management decisionmaking does not save it from trespassing on management authority sought to be immunized by Section 7106(a). … Rather, the proposals would only establish criteria for more precisely evaluating the experience and education of qualified candidates____” 56 As the proposal here at issue concerns participation on a panel charged with making

David Monro Souders v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

48 F.3d 546 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 3, 1995

Id. 10 Dant also established that the critical inquiry in determining whether a challenged WMATA action is "discretionary" is whether the action expresses the "political, social, and economic judgments" of the agency. … Such diversity of acceptable noise levels would clearly impose an undue burden on WMATA--one, we feel certain, not intended by the Compact's signatories. B.

American Dental Association v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services

3 F.3d 445 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 27, 1993

Although the Act does not define the term “entity,” its language and structure indicate clearly that Congress did not intend the statutory term “entity” to include individual practitioners. … The Act directs HHS to establish a national data bank for the collection and dissemination of malpractice information.

Virginia M. St. Peter v. Secretary of the Army

659 F.2d 1133 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 1, 1981

There the Court described the evidence that the plaintiff must present to establish a prima facie case in a hiring situation: (i) that he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for … Defendant’s articulation of its nondiscriminatory rationale for the employment action at issue here is clearly revealed in the record.

Michigan Citizens for an Independent Press v. Richard Thornburgh, United States Attorney General

868 F.2d 1300 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 24, 1989

(Newspaper giants like *1305 Knight-Ridder and Gannett certainly qualify as sophisticated). … "Such a result was clearly not intended by Congress.” Reply Brief of Appellants at 7 n. 3.

Candace M. Hanson v. F. Nordy Hoffmann, Sergeant at Arms, His Agents, Predecessors and Successors, United States Senate

628 F.2d 42 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 8, 1980

The defendant moved to dismiss on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a claim, and on the grounds that defendant enjoyed sovereign immunity from suit as a United States official and absolute immunity as an individual … This is so even though the immunity of government employees from sanction is not necessarily co-extensive with the immunity of citizens from prosecution for speech on the public way.

Latin America/pacific Coast Steamship Conference and Its Member Lines v. Federal Maritime Commission and United States of America

465 F.2d 542 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 24, 1972

The 1961 amendments were not intended to do away with this limited immunity. … in a dual rate contract would clearly run counter to the antitrust laws.

Young v. Dist. of Columbia

322 F. Supp. 3d 26 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 20, 2018

The Supreme Court has admonished that "the general rules set forth in Garner ... do not by themselves create clearly established law outside an 'obvious case.' " Kisela , 138 S.Ct. at 1153 (quoting White , 137 S.Ct. at 552 … Thus, the constitutional right defendant Powell is alleged to have violated was clearly established at the time of the shooting.

Norfolk Southern Railway Company v. STB

72 F.4th 297 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 30, 2023

The Belt Line was established in 1896 as a joint venture of eight railroads to provide switching services in Norfolk, Portsmouth and Chesapeake, Virginia. … And as the Board reasonably emphasized, “[t]he Board and the public must be able to clearly understand the control authority sought and granted, particularly given the significance of the immunity from antitrust laws and

Stewart, Howard P. v. Ashcroft, John

352 F.3d 422 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 23, 2003

To establish a prima facie case, Appellant must first show that (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he applied for and was qualified for an available position; and (3) despite his qualifications he was rejected. … Shalala, 199 F.3d 512, 518 (D.C.Cir.2000) (“[Plaintiff] established that he was substantively qualified -and [the Government] selected a white person.”).

United States v. Kelvin Otunyo

63 F.4th 948 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 31, 2023

Second, during this same scheme, Otunyo messaged Co-Conspirator F a fake identity so the co- conspirator could establish a personal bank account to launder funds. … Our presumption is especially relevant when a defendant alleges an unwarranted disparity, as “avoidance of unwarranted disparities was clearly considered by the Sentencing Commission when setting the Guidelines ranges.”