Case law

Cummings v. Department of the Navy

279 F.3d 1051 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 15, 2002

The district court correctly reminded us that “waivers of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed and narrowly construed,” Cummings, 116 F.Supp.2d at 81 (quoting Dorsey v. … Although judicial reluctance to impinge on military matters is understandable in many contexts, 4 it is *1057 unjustified in this setting; as we have discussed, the Congress clearly enlisted the federal courts to inquire

Sea World of Florida, LLC v. Thomas Perez

748 F.3d 1202 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 11, 2014

Nothing the Commission in Pelron immunizes a workplace’s dangerous “normal activities” from oversight; the Commission simply applied well-established law that only “preventable” hazards can be considered as recognized. … The Secretary’s expert did not claim that he had expertise about killer whales in captivity, and the ALJ did not so qualify him; rather, the ALJ ruled that he “is qualified to talk about the nature of killer whales in terms

Charter Operators v. Blank

844 F. Supp. 2d 122 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 24, 2012

established an optimum yield for halibut prior to implementing the Final Rule. … The provisions cited by the plaintiffs in their argument clearly precede the seven enumerated criteria set forth in § 1853(b)(6)(A)-(G).

Fort Sill Apache Tribe v. Nat'l Indian Gaming Comm'n

317 F. Supp. 3d 504 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 25, 2018

The 2008 Opinion further stated that the Tribe had an inadequate presence in New Mexico to qualify for an exception. 1 The Tribe challenged the 2008 Opinion before the Oklahoma district court presiding over the Comanche Nation … The APA further grants a waiver of sovereign immunity.

Fred B. Black, Jr. v. Sheraton Corporation of America Appeal of United States of America

564 F.2d 531 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 22, 1977

Read in its entirety, the Report indicates that the Committee viewed as clearly precluded by the doctrine of sovereign immunity only those torts with which the amendment was concerned, e. g, assault, battery, etc. … This is clearly inconsistent with existing law, see, e. g., Downs v.

United States v. Moore

651 F.3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 29, 2011

Moore and Gray’s joint stewardship in Northeast after November 17, 1995, is established most clearly by Andrews’s answers on the government’s direct examination: Q: How often, when you were hanging out with Kevin Gray every … But the district court had no authority to immunize Ward, or to compel the government to immunize Ward. The decision to grant immunity from prosecution rests solely with the Executive Branch.

Association of Private Sector Colleges & Universities v. Duncan

681 F.3d 427 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 5, 2012

Reg. at 66,859 (“Since the final regulations only establish minimal standards for institutions to qualify as legally authorized by a State, we believe that, in most instances, they do not impose significant burden or costs … in a traditional area of state concern unless Congress has clearly authorized them to do so.

Hendricks v. Geithner

568 F.3d 1008 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 19, 2009

But even if she clearly established that Camus graded her incorrectly, which she has not, Hendricks failed to produce either direct or circumstantial evidence suggesting his grading was motivated by discrimination. … Here the alleged discriminatory decision maker, Dwyer, was clearly involved in the process. Camus’s contribution, moreover, was unlikely to make a difference.

Cohen v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of the D.C.

311 F. Supp. 3d 242 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 24, 2018

Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability when their conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." … Because the defendants do not raise a qualified immunity defense, the Court does not address whether they may be entitled to it. McGinnis , 65 F.Supp.3d at 220 .

In re Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan

358 F.3d 970 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 27, 2004

Discussion The Ethics in Government Act provides for reimbursement of attorneys’ fees expended in defense against an investigation under the Act by subjects who qualify under 28 U.S.C. § 593 (f)(1). … Because the Act “constitutes a waiver of sovereign immunity it is to be strictly construed.” In re Nofziger, 925 F.2d 428, 438 (D.C.Cir.1991) (per curiam).

Peter D. Coburn v. Pan American World Airways, Inc

711 F.2d 339 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 28, 1983

The evidence produced at trial was clearly sufficient to support a jury finding of a prima facie case based on Cuddy . … However, the evidence makes it clear the two positions were distinct and not properly combinable under established Pan Am policies.

Susan D. Goland and Patricia B. Skidmore v. Central Intelligence Agency

607 F.2d 339 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 23, 1978

The Senate Report states unequivocally that “[i]t is the purpose of the present bill ... to establish a general philosophy of full agency disclosure unless information is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language … FOIA’s first exemption immunizes from disclosure those matters that are (A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy

Joanne Bembenista v. United States

866 F.2d 493 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 31, 1989

Next, the district judge held that the Medical Malpractice Immunity Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1089 , did not waive the government’s sovereign immunity in this case. 676 F.Supp. at 20-21 . … Baker, 842 F.2d 369, 373 (D.C.Cir.1988) (“in the ‘murky’ area of Tucker Act jurisprudence * * * one of the few clearly established principles is that the substance of the pleadings must prevail over their form”) (quoting

Richard C. Bartel v. Federal Aviation Administration Richard C. Bartel v. United States

725 F.2d 1403 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 17, 1984

The administrative scheme which Congress established to protect civil servants’ rights preempts a constitutional claim for damages based on conduct remediable under that scheme. See Bush v. … The government is shielded from suit for monetary damages, however, by sovereign immunity.

Dilley v. Alexander

603 F.2d 914 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 26, 1979

The military departments enjoy no immunity from this proscription. See Harmon v. Brucker, supra; Geiger v. Brown, 136 U.S.App.D.C. 132, 135-37 , 419 F.2d 714, 717-19 (1969); Roberts v. … The Army construes this to mean that Reserve officers shall be included when “qualified and available.” App. at 143.

United States v. Lioyd Lee, Jr.

506 F.2d 111 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 9, 1974

Kinnard, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 386 , 390-391, 465 F.2d 566, 570-571 (1972) to witnesses testifying under use-immunity. … However, neither does the record establish the opposite conclusion.

Nos. 71-1499, 71-1521. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

452 F.2d 1239 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 8, 1971

The interests on both sides are clearly substantial. … legislative history discussed above clearly demonstrate.

Schnapper v. Foley

667 F.2d 102 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 1, 1981

This, it is alleged, caused injury of an unspecified nature to the class of persons who watch WETA, a purported class whose interests appellant Schnapper states he is qualified to represent. Id., ¶ 8. … It has been established that taxpayer standing is never available and consumer standing unlikely to be available to those asserting a Property Clause claim. Public Citizen v.

Lomax v. United States

37 D.C. App. 414 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 30, 1911

It is conceded, and the record so discloses, that the statements were made without any threats or offers of reward •or immunity on the part of the officers. … A person who lives out of the neighborhood is therefore not qualified.” 1 Greenl. Ev. 16th ed. sec. 46 1d.

Loumiet v. United States

292 F. Supp. 3d 222 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 28, 2017

At the time, they appeared to focus instead on Individual Defendants' argument that FIRREA and the APA qualified as alternatives. See, e.g. , Individual Defs.' … Individual Defendants make no argument that Abbasi should affect this Court's prior determination regarding absolute prosecutorial immunity and qualified immunity. See, e.g. , Loumiet V , 255 F.Supp.3d at 95 -96 .