Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filtersdcd

8,912 results

0.99s

  • Tabb v. District of Columbia

    605 F. Supp. 2d 89 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2009

    immunity. … of a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly established — in either order).

    Cited 26 timesPublished
  • Burrell v. Shepard

    District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 27, 2018

    Courts approach qualified immunity claims through a two-step analysis: (1) whether the alleged facts show that the individual's conduct violated a statutory or constitutional right; and (2) whether that right was clearly … Additionally, there can be no question that freedom from racial discrimination is “clearly established” under the Constitution. See Caldwell v. Caesar, 150 F.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Li v. Li

    District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 5, 2023

    After that, “the burden of persuasion rests with the foreign sovereign claiming immunity, which must establish the absence of the factual basis by a preponderance of the evidence.” Agudas Chasidei Chabad of U.S. v. … The ICBC is not immune from suit under the FSIA. As an initial matter, the Court concludes that the ICBC does not qualify for presumptive immunity under the FSIA.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • United States v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A.

    3 F. Supp. 2d 31 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 16, 1998

    A petitioner must first establish standing. … pursuant to use immunity under 18 U.S.C. § 6002 .

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Valore v. Islamic Republic of Iran

    478 F. Supp. 2d 101 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2007

    establishes his claim or right to relief by evi *106 dence satisfactory to the court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1608 (e); Roeder v. … Finally, the deceased servicemen and their survivors clearly suffered both physical and mental pain and anguish as a direct result of the attack on the barracks.

    Cited 21 timesPublished
  • Buaiz v. United States

    471 F. Supp. 2d 129 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 24, 2007

    Bush, 448 F.Supp.2d 198, 200 (D.D.C.2006) (“a plaintiff must *135 overcome the defense of sovereign immunity in order to establish the jurisdiction necessary to survive a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.”)- Waivers of sovereign … The Court clearly lacks jurisdiction over these claims. Finally, the Court must dismiss Counts 12, 13, 20, and 22 through 26. Those are Mr.

    Cited 40 timesPublished
  • Neely v. Blumenthal

    458 F. Supp. 945 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 6, 1978

    Defendants’ principal line of attack is the exclusivity rule established in Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820 , 96 S.Ct. 1961 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976). … Sovereign immunity and the various officer immunities offer separate protections that protect separate interests.

    Cited 26 timesPublished
  • Lewis v. Government of the District of Columbia

    195 F. Supp. 3d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 2016

    Judicial immunity bars claims against individual judges in their personal capacities. Smith v. Scalia, 44 F. … Riverside, 500 U.S. at 57 (“intervening weekends” do “not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance”). Second, the District claims that Lewis’s detention was lawful pursuant to D.C. Code § 23-1322(a)(1)(A).

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Sibley v. Roberts

    224 F. Supp. 3d 29 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2016

    To the contrary, it is well established that actions taken by judicial officers in their official capacity qualify for absolute immunity from suit. See, e.g., Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 10 (1991); Sindram v. … Although a judge is not immune from criminal prosecution, judicial immunity from civil liability extends even to actions that are allegedly malicious or corrupt.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Loumiet v. United States of America

    65 F. Supp. 3d 19 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 21, 2014

    Plaintiff clearly could have made this argument at the time the parties briefed Defendants’ motions to dismiss. … . § 2680(h) (the FTCA’s waiver of immunity shall not apply to “any claim arising out of . . . libel [or] slander”).

    Cited 30 timesPublished
  • Simon v. Republic of Hungary

    277 F. Supp. 3d 42 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2017

    under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1605–07. … Id. at 33 (noting that Hungary’s interests in this case are “clearly paramount”).

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Tavoulareas v. Piro

    93 F.R.D. 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 1981

    At the same time, it is well established that the privilege is not absolute but qualified and may yield in appropriate circumstances. … In Gravel, supra, the Court held that: Rodberg’s immunity, testimonial or otherwise, extends only to legislative acts as to which the Senator himself would be immune.

    Cited 20 timesPublished
  • Lihong Xia v. Kerry

    73 F. Supp. 3d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 12, 2014

    “[A] plaintiff must overcome the defense of sovereign immunity in order to establish the jurisdiction necessary to survive a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.” Jackson v. … The record does not establish that requiring exhaustion would be futile: There is no “certainty of an adverse decision or indications that pursuit of administrative remedies would be clearly useless.” Cost v. Soc. Sec.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Ward v. Kennard

    133 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 24, 2001

    In this case, the plaintiff established pri-ma-facie cases of sex and age discrimination: 1) he applied for a position, 2) he was qualified, 3) he was in the protected classes (male, 53 years of age), 4) he was not selected … Circuit 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. See id. at 103 ; Mot for Summ.

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Common Cause v. Federal Election Commission

    676 F. Supp. 286 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 26, 1986

    Discussion It is appropriate at the outset to establish the framework for our consideration of the issues presented. First, plaintiff’s petition allows only limited review by this court. … If the Commission indeed relied only on this two-prong test in considering plaintiff’s complaint, it must clearly indicate this fact.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Dougherty v. Barry

    607 F. Supp. 1271 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 1985

    Rogers claims that he is protected from individual liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … United States International Development-Cooperation Agency, 557 F.Supp. 484 (D.D.C.1983) (qualified immunity discussed in section 1981 action).

    Vacated on other grounds by Dougherty v. Barry, 869 F.2d 605 (1989)Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Amador County, California v. Kempthorne

    170 F. Supp. 3d 135 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 2016

    The tribes sought equitable relief requiring the Secretary to: (1) “unterminate” each of the seventeen rancherias and (2) restore plaintiffs’ “rights, privileges and immunities” as Native Americans under the United States … These provisions, the Secretary argues, preclusively establish that the Rancheria qualifies as “Indian land.”

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Kaur v. Kellenberger

    District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 2025

    The Court Declines To Address Defendants’ Qualified Immunity Arguments Defendants alternatively seek summary judgment on a qualified-immunity theory, should the Court “decides to extend Bivens to this case.” … Simply put, the Court is not positioned to resolve Defendants’ qualified immunity arguments on the summary-judgment record the parties presented, at least not without sifting through the entirety of the record itself.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Doe v. Bin Laden

    580 F. Supp. 2d 93 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2008

    “On a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction.” Larsen v. U.S. … Butz, 510 F.2d 743, 753 (D.C.Cir.1975), and courts should not “ascribe to Congress errors that it clearly did not intend.” Crooker v.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Flythe v. District of Columbia

    19 F. Supp. 3d 311 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 2014

    Flythe had not been seized by Officer Vazquez for purposes of his excessive force claim against him, and that he had been seized by Officer Eagan, but that Officer Eagan was entitled to qualified immunity because he was … At the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff argued zealously that Officer Eagan’s drug use did not entitle him to qualified immunity. See Pl.’s Opp’n Mot. Summ. J. 18–19, ECF No. 67.

    Cited 4 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.