Case law

Cruz-Roldan v. Nagurka

246 F. Supp. 3d 155 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2017

Although Braa’y 7 is well-settled constitutional law of the type that can defeat the qualified immunity that Nagurka enjoys when facing § 1983 claims, plaintiff has not suffered any constitutional injury from a Braa’y violation … Defendant asserts he is protected by the “common interest” privilege and that the facts on the face of the Complaint establish that he is entitled to that privilege.

CITY OF MOUNDRIDGE, KS. v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

471 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 9, 2007

Defendant ConocoPhillips also contends that the NPC is immune from federal antitrust laws because the NPC is a federal instrumentality and NPC's immunity should be extended to defendants. … Therefore, defendants are not immune from antitrust liability on that basis. 8 .

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Food and Drug Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2010

Understanding the potential for your product to elicit an immune response is critical, since [LMWHs] are associated with a serious immune-driven adverse event, heparin induced thrombocytopenia … regarding “methods for qualifying impurities.”

Jackson v. United States of America

248 F. Supp. 3d 167 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2017

Nearly every American is aware of the most famous of these—the Zapruder film, which clearly captured the fatal shot—and younger generations are taught about it in their history classes. … Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing jurisdiction. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). Ms.

Jones v. Delaney

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 21, 2009

Congress has not waived the federal government's sovereign immunity with respect to constitutional torts, and therefore the United States is immune from a damages suit for a constitutional tort. See F.D.IC v. … "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.

Gonzalez Flavell v. Kim

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2022

Although Defendants contend that they are immune from service of process, they agreed to waive service of process without prejudice to their assertion of immunity. … Rather, other statutory provisions upon which Defendants rely clearly distinguish between the Bank and its officers and employees.

Women Prisoners of the District of Columbia Department of Corrections v. District of Columbia

899 F. Supp. 659 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 14, 1995

The District of Columbia, therefore has no immunities under the Eleventh Amendment. 2. … Such a contrast clearly violates the principle of equal protection.

Dickson v. United States

831 F. Supp. 893 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 1993

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY BARS THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR MONETARY DAMAGES FOR THE DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGED CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS. … As our Circuit has stated, "plaintiffs must, at the very least, specify the 'clearly established' rights they allege to have been violated with ... precision." Martin v.

United States v. Rose

790 F. Supp. 340 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 21, 1992

only for “legislative acts,” i.e., those acts “clearly a part of the legislative process — the due functioning of the process.” 408 U.S. at 516 , 92 S.Ct. at 2539 (emphasis in original). … Title 2 U.S.C. § 705 (a) directs the House and Senate Ethics Committees to "establish procedures for the review “[of financial disclosure statements] to determine whether they are "timely ... complete, and are in proper form

Wagner Seed Co., Inc. v. Bush

709 F. Supp. 249 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 4, 1989

immunity ambiguities in favor of the United States. … Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 620 , 83 S.Ct. 999, 1006 , 10 L.Ed.2d 15 (1963) (all suits to take money from the public treasury implicate sovereign immunity).

Kaul v. Federation of State Medical Boards

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 1, 2020

Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943), established that state and municipal authorities are immune from federal antitrust lawsuits for actions taken pursuant to a clearly expressed state policy that, when legislated, had foreseeable … However, unlike Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, Parker immunity requires that an actor be carrying out a clearly articulated state policy and that actor be “actively supervised by the State.” N.C.

N'jai v. U.S. Department of Education

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2021

A state is immune from federal suits brought by the state’s own citizens or the citizens of another state unless the state waives its sovereign immunity or Congress abrogates that immunity. See Jones v. … “To establish [specific] personal jurisdiction . . .

Fredericks v. United States Department of the Interior

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 2, 2021

In particular, and importantly, it is well established that “[n]either the Tucker Act nor the Indian Tucker Act creates substantive rights; they are simply jurisdictional provisions that operate to waive sovereign immunity … Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 224 (1983) (“Mitchell II”) (quoting 25 U.S.C. § 406(a)), it has concluded that those provisions “clearly establish fiduciary obligations of the Government in the management and operation of Indian

Olenick v. Brucker

173 F. Supp. 493 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 18, 1959

Thus, Congress clearly intended the United States Army Reserve, Ready Reserve, to constitute an integral part of the Army. … If evidence should be developed that the retention of a reservist in the military establishment is not clearly consistent with national security, it is conceded by plaintiff’s counsel that the Secretary has the power to terminate

Swecker v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2022

cogeneration and small power production facilities (collectively, 'qualifying facilities')." … The APA only waives sovereign immunity for actions "seeking relief other than money damages." See Trudeau v. Federal Trade Comm 'n, 456 F. 178, 186 (D.C.

Heiser v. Islamic Republic Of

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

. § 1605(a)(7) of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), plaintiffs litigated this civil action against defendants the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Iranian Ministry of Information and Security, and the Iranian Revolutionary … No other federal civil actions qualify for such an extraordinary measure. The new power of lis pendens afforded to FSIA plaintiffs under § 1605A is exceedingly broad.

Chiejina v. Federal Republic of Nigeria

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 2022

. § 1605(a)(6) (providing for exception to foreign sovereign immunity for certain actions brought “to confirm an award made pursuant to . . . an agreement to arbitrate”).2 To establish Jurisdiction pursuant to the FSIA’s … However, “this is only a burden of production; 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.” Jd.

Native Village of Eklutna v. United States Department of the Interior

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 22, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION “[O]ne problem has always plagued most Alaska Native governments—the lack of a clearly defined territory subject to their jurisdiction.” David S. Case & David A. … The Opinion even found that “it would be improper to conclude that no Native village in Alaska could qualify as a federally recognized tribe.” A.R. 2270.

Gage v. State of New Jersey

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2019

Because not all of the Defendants are residents of the District of Columbia, the District of Columbia cannot qualify as a proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). … “Few doctrines were more established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction.” Cleavinger v.

Walker v. Kleindienst

357 F. Supp. 749 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 1, 1973

It is well established that the federal government has no license to discriminate. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 , 74 S.Ct. 693 , 98 L.Ed. 884 (1954) and eases there cited. … The 1972 Act is clearly remedial.