Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
8,912 results
3.05s
215 F. Supp. 3d 62 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 18, 2016
ANALYSIS Gladden and Ogu move for summary judgment on Doe’s § 1983 claim on the grounds that they are protected by qualified immunity. … But, on the present record, and resolving all disputed factual issues in Doe’s favor, qualified immunity is unavailable.
Cited 12 timesPublishedDistrict Court, District of Columbia · May 12, 2026
This court has now found Iran liable under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) for four “bellwether” attacks involving the claims of 20 Plaintiffs, Lee v. Islamic Republic of Iran (Lee I), 518 F. … In Lee II, however, the court did not make findings as to Iran’s liability for the claims of family-member Plaintiffs due to the absence of proof satisfying the threshold requirements that a FSIA plaintiff (1) have a qualifying
Cited 0 timesPublishedBaumel v. Syrian Arab Republic
District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2009
. § 1605(a)(7), an exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1602 et seq., that waives the sovereign immunity of a designated foreign state in actions in which money damages are sought for … Because “[i]t is a clearly established principle of the law of war that detention may last no longer than active hostilities,” Hamdi v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedRobinson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 13, 2023
Plaintiffs can- not sustain their claims for money damages because the government has not waived its sovereign immunity. … guidance, and create a plan to prevent further violative conduct; requesting a declaration that the multiplier is unlawful). 10 these forward-looking forms of relief, none qualifies
Cited 0 timesPublished617 F. Supp. 1260 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 22, 1985
In applying these factors, the Court concludes that plaintiff did establish a pri *1266 ma facie case. … Regardless of whether the transfer and demotion qualified as an adverse action for purposes of the Civil Service Reform Act, T. at 637 (Weithoner), it clearly qualifies as a personnel action and thus is within the scope of
Cited 6 timesPublished608 F. Supp. 2d 73 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 17, 2009
As this Court has explained: It is a bedrock principle of American law that the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit unless Congress has expressly waived that immunity. … Because “[s]overeign immunity is jurisdictional in nature,” F.D.I.C. v.
Cited 10 timesPublishedMelcher v. Federal Open Market Committee
644 F. Supp. 510 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 1986
If both precedents are mechanically applied, the result is that section 263(a) is immune from constitutional attack. … The remaining 20 directors were elected annually at the banking house in Philadelphia by the qualified stockholders of the corporation.
Cited 10 timesPublishedUnited States v. Philip Morris Inc.
304 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 24, 2004
Defendants argued that Noerr-Pennington doctrine immunized their earlier litigation strategies. … "Defendants, having been hailed into court in the earlier litigations, were clearly not exercising their right to petition the government.”
Cited 2 timesPublished134 F. Supp. 3d 42 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 22, 2015
Where the federal government is a defendant, the plaintiff must establish federal subject matter jurisdiction as well as an applicable waiver of sovereign immunity to survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1 … immunity.”
Cited 4 timesPublishedMethodist Federation for Social Action v. Eastland
141 F. Supp. 729 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 25, 1956
The King asserted his absolute prerogative and Parliament asserted its immunity. … The power should be employed only when the reason for it is clear, and then the reason should be clearly stated.
Cited 9 timesPublishedAlkanani v. Aegis Defense Services, LLC
976 F. Supp. 2d 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2014
A to White Decl.), so they hardly qualify as “doing business” with D.C. residents in the District of Columbia. … The docket in Aegis UK’s earlier case clearly establishes that Aegis UK voluntarily dismissed its complaint, so Aegis UK did not have occasion to argue, and a court certainly had no occasion to accept, that CPA Order 17 conferred
Cited 39 timesPublished59 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 27, 1996
A newsman can claim no general immunity, qualified or otherwise, from grand jury questioning. On the contrary, like all other witnesses, he must appear and normally must answer. … Such would clearly be improper under the Branzburg decision.”) See also Cervantes v.
Cited 5 timesPublishedDetroit International Bridge Company v. Government of Canada
192 F. Supp. 3d 54 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 21, 2016
Michigan’s immunity would not be an issue if there were an “unmistakably clear” abrogation of the State’s immunity by Congress or an “express and unequivocal” waiver of its immunity by Michigan, thereby allowing the State … The Court will not apply the exception in light of Michigan’s immunity.
Cited 12 timesPublished864 F. Supp. 208 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 5, 1994
The request that the OTR establish procedures for future trade agreements is grounded solely in the APA. The Court will deal with each issue separately. II. … Although not at issue in this case, the Court previously indicated that some constitutional claims may be addressed outside the APA unless Congress clearly intended to preclude such review. Webster v.
Abrogated on other grounds by Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Robert B. Reich, Secretary, United States Department of Labor, 74 F.3d 1322 (1996)Cited 7 timesPublishedLopez Castro v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland
39 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 14, 2014
Application of these statutes, Defendants contend, demonstrates that Plaintiffs do not qualify for any remedy. … But even if they did so qualify, Defendants nevertheless maintain that Plaintiffs’ suit is untimely.
Cited 4 timesPublishedDoraleh Container Terminal Sa v. Republic of Djibouti
District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 15, 2023
Sovereign Immunity First, Djibouti has waived sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). … Further, the Tribunal clearly gave Djibouti “the opportunity to be heard” as required under the due process standard. After November 14, 2018 Mr.
Cited 0 timesPublished763 F. Supp. 2d 145 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 8, 2011
Nafziger, 367 Fed.Appx. 942, 954 (10th Cir.2010) (affirming dismissal of Bivens claim against warden because the denial of a grievance regarding treatment for Hepatitis C does not establish his participation in alleged constitutional … The individual defendants raise the statute of limitations and qualified immunity as affirmative defenses.
Cited 26 timesPublishedTjgem LLC v. Republic of Ghana
26 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 31, 2013
This presumption of immunity “is overcome only if the plaintiff shows that one of the exceptions to immunity provided in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1605–07 applies.” TMR Energy Ltd., 411 F.3d at 299. … See, e.g., Maritime Int’l Nominees Establishment v. Republic of Guinea, 693 F.2d 1094, 1109 (D.C.
Cited 5 timesPublishedDistrict Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2018
Therefore, the Privacy Act “inhibits the availability of a Bivens remedy” for the alleged misconduct forming the basis of this action, id., which, in turn, renders consideration of CSO Cecala’s qualified immunity defense … See Liff, 881 F.3d at 924 (“Because we have determined that Liff has no viable Bivens action . . . , we need not consider their qualified-immunity defenses.”) (citation omitted)); see also Armstrong v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTurner v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
853 F. Supp. 2d 134 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 9, 2012
In discussing the immunity issue raised in WMATA’s original Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff argued, “WMATA cannot allege immunity when the actions by the official (Wallington) were not within the scope of his employment … Finally, that case involved one rape, not repeated instances of sexual harassment, the latter of which more clearly corresponds to the facts in Faragher and Ellerth and which more logically permits the employment of these
Cited 1 timesPublished
Ask Donna