Case law

Kenley v. District of Columbia

118 F. Supp. 3d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 13, 2015

Supp. 184, 189 (D.D.C. 1997) (“Activity that is constrained by regulations or clearly established policy or standards is ministerial in nature. . . . … This is particularly so where the witness statements, as here, contain clearly exculpatory information.

Jackson v. Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2019

“To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … If it his “interest” in sitting for the bar, he has not alleged facts establishing his entitlement to that benefit.

American International Group, Inc. v. Islamic Republic

493 F. Supp. 522 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 10, 1980

Under the narrow interpretation, CII and its property are clearly subject to jurisdiction since CII is a commercial entity. … Third, the defendants and their property do not enjoy any immunity pursuant to the terms of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1602 , et seq. (1976).

Konah v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 3, 2013

Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Ortiz v. … Courts employ a two-step inquiry to determine whether qualified immunity applies, looking (1) at whether a constitutional right was violated and (2) whether that right was clearly established. See Saucier v.

Wiggins v. Philip Morris, Inc.

853 F. Supp. 458 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 13, 1994

“[T]he law affords ... a supervisor such as [defendant Nedimyer] a qualified privilege to act properly and justifiably toward a fellow employee and that employee’s true employers _” Sorrells, 565 A.2d at 291 . … These claims are clearly outside the one-year bar. See supra note 3.

Williams v. Johnson

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 18, 2009

A legislature’s efforts to -10- acquire information during formal committee investigations or through the issuance of subpoenas thus clearly constitute “legislative acts … First, Plaintiff argues that the Court should find that the District’s Speech or Debate statute provides only qualified, not absolute, immunity, and that the Court should therefore balance Plaintiff’s need for the evidence

Rosales v. United States

477 F. Supp. 2d 119 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 2007

Only qualified voters may hold positions on the Executive Committee. Id. Thirty-percent of qualified voters must be present at General Council meetings to constitute a quorum. Id. B. … Under section 81.22, only “qualified voters]” may contest election results.

Kurd v. Republic of Turkey

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2020

There are two qualifiers to the FSIA’s tortious acts exception to sovereign immunity. … Brewer, 76 F.3d 1127 (10th Cir. 1996) (in part, affirming denial of qualified immunity for law enforcement officer assisting with security for Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s visit to the United States who was accused

Xie v. Kerry

21 F. Supp. 3d 89 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 5, 2014

DOS then establishes "cut-off dates" for each category of applicant based on the estimated number of available visas. … Ia’. lf the number of qualified applicants for a certain category exceeds the number of available visas, then all applicants with priority dates after the established cut-off date for that category are not granted visas.

Rivera v. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2013

In his opposition, plaintiff barely mentions sovereign immunity, and instead argues that qualified immunity should not bar his claims. See Pl.’s Resp. to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss (“Pl.’s Opp’n”) at 10-11. … Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985), such as qualified immunity, see Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982).

Owens v. Republic of Sudan

374 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2005

Section 1604 of the statute establishes the general rule that a foreign state is immune from suit, stating that “a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except … There are few acts that more clearly violate international law than a terrorist attack on innocent civilians.

Smith v. World Bank Group

99 F. Supp. 3d 166 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 21, 2015

On a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the Court has jurisdiction. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). … Smith alluded in her pleadings to various legal sources, although she did not clearly identify those sources, and she appears to concede that they did not create an additional waiver of the World Bank’s immunity.

Stovall v. Veneman

394 F. Supp. 2d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 24, 2005

Knouff if FSA would provide the necessary funds but was informed that he did not qualify for additional loans. Mr. Snyder helped Mr. … Circuit has “recognized the well-established rule that sovereign immunity bars suits for money damages against officials in their official capacity, absent a specific waiver by the government.” Ward v.

Ben-Rafael v. Islamic Republic of Iran

718 F. Supp. 2d 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 18, 2010

To qualify, the new action must “aris[e] out of the same act or incident” and “eommence[ ] not later than the latter of 60 days after—(A) the date of the entry of judgment in the original action; or (B) the date of the enactment … Before entering default judgment, the Court must inquire further to determine if plaintiffs have established their claims “by evidence satisfactory to the court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1608 (e).

Lebron v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

665 F. Supp. 923 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 5, 1987

WMATA also challenges 25 hours of law clerk research on the issues of qualified *929 and sovereign immunity, on the grounds that this research involved individual claims upon which Lebrón did not prevail. … WMATA’s reference to the qualified immunity held by its officials in the exercise of their official duties also is misplaced. In Owen v.

Lempert v. Power

45 F. Supp. 3d 79 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 22, 2014

As discussed more fully in that opinion, the cases cited by Defendant clearly establish the UN’s absolute immunity from suit absent express waiver of this immunity by the UN. … Plaintiff’s Claims against Rice in her Personal Capacity Plaintiff’s initial Complaint failed to clearly set out whether he was suing Defendant Rice in her official capacity as U.S.

In Re: In the Matter of the Fort Totten Metrorail Cases Arising Out of the Events of June 22, 2009

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 16, 2012

qualifies as the “District of Columbia government” within the meaning of § 12-310(b)(4). 5 Resisting this conclusion, Alstom relies upon the D.C. … Subsection (c), however, just as clearly limits the maintenance of insurance until acceptance of the work performed under the contract.

Heffez v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

569 F. Supp. 1551 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 1983

Section 76 of the Compact empowers WMA-TA to establish and maintain the Metro Transit Police, “to provide protection for its patrons, personnel, and transit facilities.” 2 . … Transp., 683 F.2d 663, 672 (2d Cir.1982), where the compact clearly specified that the multi-state entity “shall enjoy the sovereign immunity of the party states.” 7 .

Magowan v. Lowery

166 F. Supp. 3d 39 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 29, 2016

immunity.” … To establish a prima facie case for failure to promote, the plaintiff must allege “that (1) [s]he is a member of a protected class; (2) [s]he applied for and was qualified for an available position; (3) despite [her] qualifications

Cranford, II v. United States Department of the Interior

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 10, 2026

Supp. 2d 40, 46 (D.D.C. 2006) (“[Section] 1985 does not waive the federal government's sovereign immunity, so federal employees acting in their official capacities are immune from liability for alleged violations of § … “[C]ourts must [therefore] use great caution [and] grant[ ] them only in cases where they are clearly indispensable to the ends of justice.” Hanson, 120 F.4th at 243 (quoting Del. State Sportsmen's Ass'n, v. Del.