Case law

Moss v. Stockard

580 A.2d 1011 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 1990

It then noted that very few state courts had extended absolute immunity this far, but rather had reserved absolute immunity for only the highest officials and accorded lesser officials qualified immunity. … Thompson, supra, this court implicitly rejected a rank-based distinction that reserves absolute immunity only for high-level ranking executive officials, leaving inferior officers only qualified immunity.

Thurman v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 2022

We nevertheless agree with the trial court that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for these claims. … Thurman’s right was not clearly established.

Nealon v. District of Columbia

669 A.2d 685 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 1995

Such a special relationship can be established in two ways: (1) by a statute prescribing “‘mandatory acts clearly for the protection of a particular class of persons rather than the public as a whole’ ”; or (2) “ ‘a direct … and decision-making,” and (3) the recognition that for certain decisions made in the exercise of discretionary functions, "there is no reason to believe a jury would render a sounder decision than those officials chosen, qualified

District of Columbia v. Jones

919 A.2d 604 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2007

When determining whether an act qualifies for absolute immunity, the court does not inquire into an official’s motives. See Barr v. … Political ambition is merely one type of motive, and we have already established that motive is irrelevant to deciding whether an official is entitled to absolute immunity.

Katz v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2022

Katz must also overcome Sergeant Maguire’s invocation of qualified immunity. … privilege against common law tort claims and qualified immunity from constitutional claims”).

Slater v. Biehl

793 A.2d 1268 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2002

“The exclusion is expressed in strong and unqualified terms” and does not countenance a qualified interpretation. Ketland v. … Thus, 28 U.S.C. § 1351 is clearly applicable to a civil action against Biehl, the wife of the Chilean Ambassador.

Kelton v. District of Columbia

413 A.2d 919 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 1980

[failure] to disclose alone establish liability to the patient. An unrevealed risk that should have been made known must materialize, for otherwise the omission, however unpardonable, is legally without consequence. . … The only tortious conduct which is clearly pleaded is assault and battery.

Rustin v. District of Columbia

491 A.2d 496 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 1985

barred by the principle of sovereign immunity. 7 The doctrine of sovereign immunity is well-settled in the District of Columbia. … They are decisions “for which there is no reason to believe a jury would render a sounder decision than those officials chosen, qualified, and prepared to make them.” Chandler v.

Powell v. District of Columbia

602 A.2d 1123 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 1992

(no immunity) or (2) discretionary (immunity) and ministerial (no immunity). … A “special relationship” can be established by a statute prescribing “mandatory acts clearly for the protection of a particular class of persons rather than the public as a whole,” Morgan v.

Kotsch v. District of Columbia

924 A.2d 1040 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 24, 2007

immunity and a qualified privilege that entitles the officer to use an amount of force reasonably necessary to effect the arrest. … The District asserts that the qualified privilege that protects the officers from the common law claim of assault and battery is similar to the qualified immunity that shields them from the constitutional claim of excessive

District of Columbia v. Pizzulli

917 A.2d 620 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2007

To the extent that it is relevant to the present case, Doe effectively established limits on official immunity by clearly holding that not all subordinates are automatically entitled to share in the congressional lawmakers … Whether their claim of immunity is (or is not) viable will depend on specific facts yet to be established; at this juncture we simply do not know what those facts are. 10 .

District of Columbia Housing Authority v. Pinkney

970 A.2d 854 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 7, 2009

DCHA Is Not Protected by Governmental Immunity A. The Doctrine of Governmental (or Sovereign) Immunity “The principles of sovereign immunity are well established in the District. … for sovereign immunity.

Bible Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of Apostolic Faith of Washington v. Beards

680 A.2d 419 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 24, 1996

The order (1) has conclusively determined (by rejecting) Bible Way’s claim of immunity from suit under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause; (2) has resolved a claim of immunity unrelated to the merits of the Beards … In this case, the complaint does not expressly allege, or even clearly imply, that the church has adopted the accounting standards referenced in the complaint.

Staten v. United States

562 A.2d 90 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1989

In Belton, supra, the Court recognized that while these principles are stated clearly enough, they had not been as clearly applied to specific cases. The Court noted that the protection of the Fourth ... … A highly sophisticated set of rules, qualified by all sorts of ifs, ands, and buts and requiring the drawing of subtle nuances and hairline distinctions, may be the sort of heady stuff upon which the facile minds of lawyers

Jermyl Moody v. United States

82 A.3d 769 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2013

RUIZ, Senior Judge, dissenting: For the first time since the court established a procedure for judicial review of defense requests for immunity in Carter v. … The witness in Moore was clearly lying about an issue material to the prosecution.

Wagshal v. District of Columbia

216 A.2d 172 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 1966

And whether it be called governmental or ministerial, it is well established that an exception to the doctrine of sovereign immunity is the District’s obligation to maintain the streets in a reasonably safe condition for … The Urow case Pointed out that the Dis' trict of Columbia’s decision to establish or not to establish a general plan of improvement is within the area protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Stanton v. Chase

497 A.2d 1066 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 1985

In support of his position, he argues that appellee’s statements were not absolutely privileged, and that under a qualified privilege, the factual allegations in his complaint were sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss … Moody, 330 F.2d 868, 870 (9th Cir.1964) (judicial immunity extended to clerks, bailiffs, and court reporters because duties “clearly” related to judicial process), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 867 , 85 S.Ct. 137 , 13 L.Ed.2d 70

Stein v. United States

532 A.2d 641 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 15, 1987

Accordingly, the reasoning that underlies the immediate appealability of an order denying absolute immunity indicates to us that the denial of qualified immunity should be similarly appealable: in each case, the district … Cissel, supra , involved D.C.Code § 6-1875 (1978 Supp.), which has been recodified as D.C.Code § 6-2375 (1981). [9] Although the Mitchell case involved the issue of qualified immunity rather than absolute immunity from suit

District of Columbia v. Forsman

580 A.2d 1314 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 1990

An examination of our precedents regarding the public duty doctrine demonstrates how difficult it is to qualify for an exception from it. … Such a relationship can be established either by “direct contact or continuing contact between the victim and the governmental agency or official,” ... or by a statute that prescribes “ ‘mandatory acts clearly for the protection

Finkelstein v. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc.

774 A.2d 332 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 2001

“In short,” the court said, “we can imagine few communicative acts more clearly within the scope of the privilege than ... meeting and discussing -with [the potential plaintiffs] park conditions *344 and the merits of the … William Hodes, The Law of Lawyering § 4.15 (3d ed.2001) (opining that absolute immunity "seems highly dubious," and that a qualified immunity "should be sufficient to protect lawyers from unwarranted lawsuits”); Paul T.