Case law

Kelley v. Morris

400 A.2d 1045 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 1979

Spann is clearly distinguishable from this case, for the Commissioners were at that time the chief executive and representatives of the District and were named as such. … This complaint clearly fails to meet the strict standards for notice to the District set out in D.C.Code 1973, § 12-309.

In re L.C.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2025

immunity; “While one might regret [the officer’s] failure to stop shooting as soon as [her assailant] went down, immunity encompasses mistaken judgments.”) … Harvel, 993 F.3d 325, 330, 333-39 (5th Cir. 2021) (holding that officer had qualified immunity with respect to first shot at armed person, but denying qualified immunity with respect to second and third shots, which were

Hines v. District of Columbia

580 A.2d 133 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 1990

These deficiencies, he argues, establish a breach of the duty the District owed Ms. Gary, and, because that negligence proximately caused Ms. Gary’s death, the District must respond in damages. … It is, as we discuss below, relevant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity, but that is not a part of this case.

Short v. United States

366 A.2d 781 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 1976

In the first place, the August 20, 1975 affidavit of the Assistant United States Attorney filed as a supplement to the motion to revoke probation clearly put appellant on notice that the government considered his possession … The cases dealing with the scope of the Fifth Amendment privilege have established that to compel someone to testify, immunity must be given barring the use of that testimony in subsequent criminal prosecutions.

Rousey v. Rousey

528 A.2d 416 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 1987

A division of the court, recognizing that the doctrine of parental immunity had never been established as the law of the District of Columbia, refused to adopt it and held that appellant was not barred from maintaining this … That section states: (1) A parent or child is not immune from tort liability to the other solely by reason of that relationship. (2) Repudiation of general tort immunity does not establish liability for an act or omission

Ginsberg v. Granados

963 A.2d 1134 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 2009

The FYCA imposes no duties on opposing counsel that would contradict this well-established rule. … As noted above, the FYCA clearly creates no duties on opposing counsel. The FYCA therefore does not establish "privity” between the parties and creates no statutory cause of action against opposing counsel. 11 .

Aiken v. United States

30 A.3d 127 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 2011

Appellant now appeals from that ruling, arguing that the trial court clearly erred in so finding. … Circuit stated that the government's burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that it made “no use whatsoever” of immunized testimony in questioning a witness could be met “by establishing ... that the allegedly

Casco Marina Development, L.L.C. v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency

834 A.2d 77 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2003

sovereign immunity. … It also involved a statute that clearly gave the RLA broad discretion to determine whether and when it was “necessary or advantageous” to use its condemnation power. Goddard, supra, 109 U.S.App.

In Re Alexander

513 A.2d 781 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1986

Second, as to the defamation claim, the federal defendants had absolute immunity insofar as the claim was based on the common law tort of defamation, and had a qualified immunity for any tort based on an alleged constitutional … The Board also concludes that these factual findings clearly establish a violation of DR 6-101(A)(3) (neglect) and provide adequate proof of a violation of DR 6-101(A)(2) (inadequate preparation) as well. A.

United States v. Warren

373 A.2d 874 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 5, 1977

Clearly, the information he gave regarding the freeway homicides was inaccurate and at times purposefully misleading. … L.Ed.2d 212 (1972), that once the defendant establishes there had been a grant of immunity, the prosecution has the burden to establish that the evidence it proposes to use against Warren was derived from an independent legitimate

McAllister v. District of Columbia

653 A.2d 849 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 1995

In short, having failed to establish such a duty on the part of any District employee, summary judgment was proper. … Woodward, however, specifically identified the District’s agents who had a clearly defined statutory duty to exercise care in executing a warrant.

United Methodist Church v. White

571 A.2d 790 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1990

Thus, the elements of UMC’s immunity claim are clearly independent of any liability that it may bear for Rev. White’s termination. … Finally, UMC’s claim of immunity under the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution will be irreparably lost if not adjudicated before trial.

Stockard v. Moss

706 A.2d 561 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 4, 1997

On appeal in 1990, we upheld the remitti-tur, but remanded the case for a determination whether an absolute immunity protected Moss from liability for defamatory statements. Moss v. … Furthermore, the CMPA does not require an employee to overcome the qualified immunity of *567 government officials as would be required in a common law damage action, and CMPA procedures may be speedier and less costly than

Cassandra Lynn Hayes v. United States

109 A.3d 1110 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 2015

Appellant offered her own testimony at trial, which Eubank corroborated, to establish her version of events as follows. … The trial court noted that neither Carter nor any other case requires the government to grant immunity, and that the government had established a good-faith basis for its refusal.

Rodrigues-Novo v. Recchi America, Inc.

838 A.2d 1135 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 2003

Appellants assert that WMATA is not a party to any contract with a third party that will qualify it for principal contractor status. … Alternatively or in addition, appellees invoke as the requisite primary contract the charter establishing WMATA.

United States v. Anderson

450 A.2d 446 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 1982

I will discuss first the "clearly erroneous" issue, however, and then the immunity problem, which apparently gives the majority no real concern. A. … relevance on obstruction of justice was established.

Jacobs v. United States

436 A.2d 1286 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 1981

Morales testified under a grant of immunity from the government. … No independent “viable regulations or rules establish[ed] treatment standards.” id. at 1151 .

Biomet Inc. v. Finnegan Henderson LLP

967 A.2d 662 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2009

Under District of Columbia law, to prevail on a claim of legal malpractice, a plaintiff must establish the applicable standard of care, a breach of that standard, and a causal relationship between the violation and the harm … Today, that same basic proposition is often recognized as professional judgment immunity or judgmental immunity. See e.g., Woodruff v.

Gross Ex Rel. Spears v. District of Columbia

734 A.2d 1077 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 1999

If Gross thought that additional time for discovery was necessary to try to locate any such police reports, it was his duty to clearly alert the trial court to this need in opposition to the summary judgment motion. … Although the issue was qualified immunity, Fulwood applied the same constitutional standards for “deliberate indifference” that apply to determining municipal liability under § 1983. See 639 A.2d at 599 .

District of Columbia v. Arnold & Porter

756 A.2d 427 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2000

Questions designed to qualify Mr. … Moreover, “ ‘[b]ecause it is in derogation of the common law principle of sovereign immunity, section 12-309 is to be construed narrowly against claimants.’” Gross v.