Case law

Estate of John Doe v. Islamic Republic of Iran

943 F. Supp. 2d 180 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 9, 2013

Plaintiffs bring this case pursuant to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). A 1996 amendment to the FSIA revoked sovereign immunity protection for terrorist-sponsoring governments. … Accordingly, there is no sovereign immunity bar on awarding family member plaintiffs punitive damages. Besides waiving sovereign immunity, section 1605A creates a federal cause of action for some individuals.

Jean-Baptiste v. Booz Allen Hamilton

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 2024

They thus do not qualify as facts that can support a motion for summary judgment or an opposition to a cross- motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). … Nor does Jean-Baptiste clearly explain what right the conspiracy inhibited. Remember, he “must show” that the conspiracy was “aimed at interfering with rights that are protected against private[] . . . encroachment.”

Martin v. District of Columbia Government

968 F. Supp. 2d 159 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 2013

Brodsky would be entitled to qualified immunity because Ms. Martin points to no clearly established law showing that Mr. Brodsky had a duty to act under these circumstances. See Harlow v. … Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202 (2001) (“The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation

Nunes-Correia v. Haig

543 F. Supp. 812 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 13, 1982

The government asserts that since no language in the Act expressly and unequivocally waives sovereign immunity retroactively, the policy against implied waivers of federal sovereign immunity precludes courts from awarding … Only once the Act was passed and its effective date established could litigants have changed their behavior in response to the Act’s incentives.

Gates v. Syrian Arab Republic

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 20, 2009

It is well-established that a judgment entered without personal jurisdiction over a defendant is void as to that defendant. Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 442 (D.C. Cir. 1987). … commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department; (2) a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; (3) the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly

Mgm Resorts Global Development, LLC v. Department of the Interior

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 2020

“Where, as here, a party seeks to intervene as a defendant to uphold an action taken by the government, the party must establish that it will be ‘injured in fact by the setting aside of the government’s action it seeks … thus does not qualify as an “interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action.”

Bray v. Georgetown University

917 F. Supp. 55 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 1996

PLAINTIFF’S PRIMA FACIE CASE To establish a prima facie case, “plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that [he] applied for a position for which [he] was qualified, but was.rejected under circumstances which … In addition, as to plaintiff's claim of gender discrimination, the Court noted that plaintiff clearly could not establish a prima facie case since the individual ultimately hired for the position plaintiff sought was also

Cromartie v. District of Columbia

806 F. Supp. 2d 222 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 2011

Whether or not Plaintiff was actually guilty of this offense, his failure to comply with police officers’ instructions, even if stated in profane terms, was clearly sufficient to establish probable cause for his arrest. … However, Plaintiffs testimony does not clearly establish that the amount of force used by Defendant Rodriguezgil was more force than was reasonably necessary to effect the arrest. See Scott v.

United States v. Price

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 3, 2025

The Supreme Court has found this rule “so clearly consistent with the principles of equity” that its availability “goes without saying.” … . & Ohio, 279 U.S. at 786 (“The right to recover what one has lost by the enforcement of a judgment subsequently reversed is well established.”).

Klayman v. Porter

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2023

And, because “[i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies outside [ ] [the Court’s] limited jurisdiction,” Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that a … Bar Rule XI, § 19(a) and judicial immunity principles[,]” Defs.’

Bowie v. Gonzales

433 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 4, 2006

Johnson clearly did not yet understand the mechanics of how things are done in this Office.” (Id.) … As summary judgment must be granted for all First Amendment claims, the Court will not reach the merits of defendants’ argument regarding qualified immunity on the claims for individual defendants. (Defs.' Mot. Summ.

Lewis v. U.S. Department of Justice

609 F. Supp. 2d 80 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 22, 2009

All information that “applies to a particular individual” qualifies for consideration under this exemption. U.S. Dep’t of State v. … Marshal- — do not establish ‘a meaningful evidentiary showing.’ ”) (quoting Favish, 541 U.S. at 175 , 124 S.Ct. 1570 ).

Cunningham v. United States Department of Justice

961 F. Supp. 2d 226 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 21, 2013

Aug. 8, 2011) (adopting magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and determining that qualified immunity barred Mr. … Supp. 2d 198, 200 (D.D.C. 2006) (“[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.”).

El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Co. v. United States

402 F. Supp. 2d 267 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 29, 2005

the issue to a coordinate political department; or [2] a lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving it; or [3] the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly … “It is well established that decisions pertaining to national security, such as whether and how to use military forces, are entrusted to the political branches.” Id. at 1159-60; see also Haig v.

Milton v. Brown

471 F. Supp. 150 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 26, 1979

training opportunities, was delegated inferior work assignments or was subjected to working conditions that were in any respect different from those of their male counterparts, the case boils down to whether or not the proof clearly … Yet the proof fails to establish that either female applicant was, for purposes of those two vacancies, as qualified as the males who were selected. Thus, defendants have met their burden under Day v.

Milton Hospital Transitional Care Unit v. Thompson

377 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 2005

Elizabeth’s clearly rejected the Administrator’s legal conclusion that because SNFs and NFs are established under uniform certification standards, NFs are the equivalent to SNFs. … Clearly, the Administrator was acting within his authority in issuing this final decision, which was appealed to this Court.

American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Brennan

390 F. Supp. 972 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 1975

Therefore, “qualified” and “adequate” do not have an absolute sense in State enforcement plans, but are terms relative to the Federal personnel and funding levels established under OSHA. 4 Ill Having established that a State … The term “qualified personnel” has both a quantitative and a qualitative component.

In Re Fort Totten Metrorail Cases

756 F. Supp. 2d 139 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 7, 2011

WMATA has sovereign immunity, Morris v. … This high volume of alarm activity coupled with the implications resulting from the volume clearly supports WMATA's assessment that its redesignation of the alarms was a discretionary decision "fraught with public policy

United States v. Daley (In re Daley)

315 F. Supp. 3d 679 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 2, 2018

In reviewing an appeal from an order of a bankruptcy court, a district court reviews de novo conclusions of law but must accept the bankruptcy judge's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. TI Fed. … The standard for determining whether the 10% exaction is a tax or a penalty for purposes of establishing priority of claim in a bankruptcy proceeding is complicated.

Gold v. Gensler

840 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 5, 2012

The panel reviewed the applications and put each candidate in one of four categories: “Best Qualified,” “Well Qualified,” “Qualified,” and “Minimally Qualified.” 17. … A plaintiff may establish a prima facie case by showing that: (1) she was a member of the statutorily protected age group (over the age of forty); she applied for and was qualified for the position sought; (3) she was not