Case law

COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE AND RAND SIMBERG v. MICHAEL E. MANN, NATIONAL REVIEW, INC. v. MICHAEL E. MANN

150 A.3d 1213 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 2016

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

J.C. v. Dist. of Columbia

199 A.3d 192 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 27, 2018

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the District on all of the parents' claims, concluding that the District was not subject to liability because it was entitled to qualified immunity on the § 1983 claims … From this statement, we are unable to glean whether the trial court was relying on qualified immunity or absolute immunity, or the trial court's reasoning to determine *207 whether immunity was properly granted.

Kendrick v. Fox Television

659 A.2d 814 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 1995

If both conditions are satisfied, absolute immunity will be established. … To the extent that the reporters’ affidavits do not clearly establish a standard of care applicable to a particular Kendrick contention, we are satisfied that no reasonable juror could find negligence on this record, for

District of Columbia v. Pace

498 A.2d 226 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 1985

The general principle of design immunity has been established in the District for close to a century. See Johnston v. … The District’s decision on whether to establish a plan of improvement is within the area protected by sovereign immunity. Wagshal v.

Tucci v. District of Columbia

956 A.2d 684 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 2008

Similarly, “the District’s decisions as to which streets to repave or where to add curbs are clearly discretionary decisions for which the city is immune.” … Accordingly, statutes that do waive sovereign immunity speak very clearly.

Kalan, M.D. v. Medstar Georgetown Medical Center, Inc.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 2021

It appeared to assume that all of the MGUH committees so qualified. … District of Columbia, 952 A.2d 929, 936–37 (D.C. 2008) (observing that, in the context of absolute official immunity, “the burden of establishing that the official function in question merits absolute immunity rests on

Keith A. Moore v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2015

made a false allegation of sexual assault, the trial court should have permitted a “limited exploratory voir dire … to determine whether the witness fabricated an accusation”); McCraney, 983 A.2d at 1052 n.31 (“The judge clearly … Lastly, I would clearly affirm the firearm violation.

Grunley Construction Co. v. District of Columbia

704 A.2d 288 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 1997

While the Procurement Act clearly and explicitly eliminates sovereign immunity as a defense to suit on a contract, it does not speak to whether immunity exists when a claimant seeks to execute on a judgment. … District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 534 A.2d 310, 323 (D.C.1987), a princi-pie particularly applicable here given the firmly established nature of municipal immunity from attachment.

United States v. Wells

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2025

Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 11 (2015) (liability can be imposed only if official’s conduct violated a “clearly established right,” i.e., a right that is “sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that … at 67 (“[T]he inquiry is not as forgiving as the one employed in the distinct context of deciding whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity . . . .

Dupont Circle Citizens Ass'n v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

530 A.2d 1163 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 11, 1987

Notwithstanding this broad language, Congress also clearly established that “[determinations with respect to the meaning and applicability of the[se] terms ... shall be committed to the discretion of the Secretary [of State … The State Department has represented, and we have no reason to doubt, that these immunities are not the same as “diplomatic immunity” which, according to the State Department, implies some sort of formal diplomatic relationship

Sherry Allen and Wayne Allen v. District of Columbia

100 A.3d 63 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2014

We cannot do so because such factors are relevant only if potential liability is, by the special relationship exception to governmental immunity, established in the instance. … The District is protected not only by sovereign immunity, but also by the traditional elements of a negligence claim—i.e., that in addition to establishing an actionable duty a plaintiff must also prove breach and causation—as

Adams v. District of Columbia

122 A.2d 765 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 18, 1956

Rule 56 of the trial court follows almost verbatim Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. and it is established law that a summary judgment may be entered in accordance with this procedure without the … Thus, Congress, while legislating in the matter of claims by citizens against the District, has clearly shown that it had no intention to disturb or weaken the immunity doctrine; this doctrine existed at common law, judicial

Teare v. Committee on Admissions

566 A.2d 23 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 1989

Privileges and Immunities. … The privileges and immunities clause of article IV, section 2, serves to establish “a norm of comity ... that is to prevail among the States with respect to their treatment of each other’s residents.” Hicklin v.

KEVIN YOUNG v. UNITED STATES

143 A.3d 751 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 2016

United States, 80 A.3d 211, 220 (D.C. 2013) (―clearly exculpatory‖). … In that case, the testimony was clearly inculpatory, and so the court had no occasion to analyze whether the proper standard was ―exculpatory‖ or ―clearly exculpatory.‖  8

Dominion Caisson Corp. v. Clark

614 A.2d 529 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 1992

The courts clearly consider that this system of mutual give and take would be upset if the employee could sue for negligence in another jurisdiction.... … The last phrase is an important qualifier of our decision.

Banks v. Hoffman

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 2025

Council Committee Report at 4 (“Following the lead of other jurisdictions, which have similarly extended absolute or qualified immunity to individuals members of the [Committee on Impaired Nurses] shall be immune from … As the Council aptly describes in its amicus brief, the Anti-SLAPP Act’s special motion to dismiss provides certain individuals with “qualified immunity against discovery,” much like the many immunity statutes enacted by

Banks v. Hoffman (Amended Opinion)

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 2026

See Mann, 150 A.3d at 1229-30 (The Anti-SLAPP Act is “analogous to qualified immunity for official conduct in that its application depends on the court’s resolution (“There shall be no liability on the part of . . . … As the Council aptly describes in its amicus brief, the Anti-SLAPP Act’s special motion to dismiss provides certain individuals with “qualified immunity against discovery,” much like the many immunity statutes enacted by

Aguehounde v. District of Columbia

666 A.2d 443 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 1995

Because we conclude that the trial judge was not clearly erroneous in crediting the engineer’s testimony, we defer to his findings of fact. … by proving it is a ministerial function, because, as the trial court concluded, it was clearly established that setting yellow intervals, a part of the overall traffic design, is a discretionary function. .

Trost v. Tompkins

44 A.2d 226 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 1945

The list is not conclusive, nor is it the list itself on which reliance is to be placed, but on the statement of the Crown, speaking through the Attorney-General, stating that a particular person at the critical moment is qualified … Judge Learned Hand, after reviewing the authorities, said: “When the party before the court as claimant or as defendant is neither the sovereign nor his ambassador, it is now the established rule that the claim will not be

Graves v. District of Columbia

287 A.2d 524 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 1972

immunity. … Subsection (h) is clearly another and Spencer did not strike a limitation to subsection (a) alone.