Case law

Phillips v. Evening Star Newspaper Co.

424 A.2d 78 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 1980

The trial court’s opinion reviews the pertinent precedents and states both clearly and correctly the conflicting policy considerations it examined in reaching its conclusions. … The Defendant Star, not eligible under the absolute immunity category of privilege, must rely on a defeasible qualified privilege.

Park v. Brahmbhatt

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 2020

court did not analyze this precise question as to the EBC and the WBAT individually; it looked to the “structure” and “administrative apparatus” of the Bank to find that “[t]he administrative process, seen as a whole, is clearly … Circuit dismissed her complaint, holding that the Bank was entitled to immunity under § 2(b) of the International Organizations Immunities Act (the IOIA) 24 for all issues “arising out of internal administrative grievances

Pardue v. Center City Consortium Schools of the Archdiocese of Washington, Inc.

875 A.2d 669 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2005

(She alleged in particular that her replacement was a non-Catholic African-American less qualified and with significantly less experience.) … ’s “motion to dismiss on grounds of constitutional immunity”).

Innovative Institute v. DC Office of State Superintendent of Education

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 27, 2024

that it qualified for renewal of its license by satisfying the applicable statutory and regulatory standards as set forth in the” December 13 NOID. … [e]vidence of vaccinations or immunity to communicable diseases.”).

Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg v. Michael Mann

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2018

An analogy to qualified immunity is apt. … ’s claim on the merits (i.e., in the absence of qualified immunity).”

Hensley v. D.C. Dep't of Employment Services

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2022

Yanni,” that the Association is immune from 7 The court stated that Mr. … Our review of that question of statutory construction is de novo. 10 In construing the IGA Act, we must “give[] effect to the plain meaning of the words and [a]bsent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary

Carl v. Children's Hospital

702 A.2d 159 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 1997

should not perform services she is not qualified for by education, training or experience). … In addition, the Health Occupations Act clearly wants health officials to educate the public on matters of public health.

Jenkins v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2020

Jenkins” and that “qualified immunity applies.” The court  7 therefore granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on Mrs. … But we have also explained that “where the facts are undisputed or clearly established . . . probable cause becomes a question of law for the court.” Enders, 4 A.3d at 469; Smith v.

Carl v. Children's Hospital

657 A.2d 286 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 1995

should not perform services she is not qualified for by education, training or experience). … In addition, the Health Occupations Act clearly wants health officials to educate the public on matters of public health.

Bell v. United States

950 A.2d 56 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 2008

to present a defense, if the defendant establishes that the witness’s proposed testimony is (a) material, (b) clearly exculpatory, (c) non-cumulative, and (d) unobtainable from any other source. … As Riley’s Fifth Amendment privilege was properly invoked, it could have been overcome only by a grant of use immunity, the need for which it was appellant’s burden to establish by showing that Riley’s proposed testimony

Godette v. Estate of Cox

592 A.2d 1028 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 1991

Both the potential liability and the duty of care are already established in District law. See, Moore v. Moore, [ 47 App.D.C. at 27 ]; Bernstein v. … For example, a testator may wish to authorize a personal representative or a testamentary trustee to invest in securities that might be too risky to qualify under the "prudent person” rule.

Goldschmidt v. Paley Rothman Goldstein Rosenberg & Cooper, Chartered

935 A.2d 362 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 2007

Benson and Mona Fischer had loaned MBI $310,000 when it was established. … The court decided that “[m]onetary sanctions [were] clearly appropriate.”

Farina v. Janet Keenan Housing Corporation

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 22, 2025

R. 24(c), and (3) Farina failed to establish that he had standing to intervene. … But TOPA also lists a litany of property transfers that do not qualify as sales under the statute. Id. § 42-3404.02(c)(2).

United States v. Brooks

330 A.2d 245 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 1974

an example which in itself could perhaps be deemed dispositive, the statute clearly does not forbid the mere possession of an imitation pistol, but it is equally apparent that the provision does *247 forbid the possession … In making this claim, however, appellee concedes that § 22-502 (assault with a dangerous weapon) is immune from such attack but contends that the effect of the language is distinguishable in the two provisions, since the

Kalbfus v. Siddons

42 App. D.C. 310 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 22, 1914

Under the Acts of 1894 and 1902 several boards were established, composed in each instance of assistant assessors and the assessor, and in each instance the assessor was made chairman. … Clearly not.

KIRBY VINING v. COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

140 A.3d 439 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2016

Unsurprisingly then, the Superior Court’s order does not clearly reflect that it examined this argument. … Winter, 876 F.2d 165 (D..C.Cir.1989) (holding Councilmember immune from suit for acts within legislative duties); Williams v.

Brown v. District of Columbia

29 App. D.C. 273 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1907

The question in either case must be whether the facts upon which it is called to instruct the jury be clearly established. … He should be allowed to explain and qualify it, so far as the truth will permit; but if, with such explanation and qualification, it should clearly appear that there could be no recovery, the court should not hesitate to

Jackson v. Scott

667 A.2d 1365 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 1995

Simmons had ignored contrary evidence [bearing on negligence] established a sufficient foundation” to permit impeachment with the otherwise confidential material. … Matar did not refer directly to the peer review materials, his theory of the case rested on information which was clearly confirmed by those documents.” .

Bouknight v. United States

867 A.2d 245 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 2005

In fight of his ruling that Bouk-night had failed to establish ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. … The judge then concluded that Bouknight had not established ineffectiveness of counsel. We affirm that ruling. IY.

Woods v. District of Columbia

63 A.3d 551 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2013

, or exceptions to waivers of sovereign immunity”). … While not relevant to the case before us, our court has held that "[a] ‘special relationship’ can [also] be established by a statute prescribing mandatory acts clearly for the protection of a particular class of persons rather