Case law

Jackson v. United States

558 F. Supp. 14 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 13, 1982

The claimant’s status and relationship to the decedent is crucial in establishing the extent of that loss. … However, if this suit were not dismissed, limiting the ad damnum clause would clearly be appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 2675 .

Leopold v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 10, 2025

“To determine whether acknowledging the existence or non-existence of responsive records ‘fits a FOIA exemption, courts apply the general exemption review standards established in non- Glomar cases.’” Leopold, 301 F. … immunity is an entitlement to “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.”

Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation v. United States

637 F. Supp. 2d 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 27, 2009

Rule 12(b)(1) Under Rule 12(b)(1), the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court — plaintiffs here — bears the burden of establishing that the court has jurisdiction. See U.S. Ecology, Inc. v. U.S. … Secretary shall, within ninety days 'Rafter receipt of the proposal, approve the ^'proposal and award the contract unless the ^'Secretary provides written notification to A-the applicant that contains a specific finding that clearly

Kiyemba v. Obama

555 F.3d 1022 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 18, 2009

Application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity to defeat a remedy is one common example. See Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 754 , 119 S.Ct. 2240 , 144 L.Ed.2d 636 (1999). … The government asserts that petitioners would not qualify for admission under the immigration laws. Gov't Br. 27-29.

Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President

821 F. Supp. 761 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 9, 1993

It is an established principle of law that once a court issues an injunction, those persons subject to it must obey the terms of the Order as long as the injunction remains in effect. See SEC v. … The Court is aware that imposition of monetary sanctions against the federal government often is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Nonbelief Relief, Inc. v. Kautter

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 10, 2020

Upon incorporation, NonBelief Relief qualified as a tax-exempt nonprofit organization under 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Id. ¶¶ 4, 31. … Lynch, 5 The operative complaint alleges that the IRS’s revocation of NonBelief Relief’s tax-exempt status violated both the Establishment and Due Process Clauses, and that the church exemption violates only the Establishment

Stethem v. Islamic Republic of Iran

201 F. Supp. 2d 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 19, 2002

Both of these requirements are clearly satisfied here. … The murder of Robert Stethem qualifies as an “extrajudicial killing” under the Act: namely, "a deliberate killing not authorized by a previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all judicial guarantees

G v. Fay Sch., Inc.

282 F. Supp. 3d 381 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2017

Maret is technically well qualified to give the opinion he offers. … While the Plaintiffs have clearly alleged Mr.

Wagner v. Islamic Republic of Iran

172 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 6, 2001

A foreign state is generally immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States under the FSIA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1604 . … Embassy was a deliberate and premeditated act that qualifies as an extrajudicial killing for purposes of the FSIA.

DL v. District of Columbia

450 F. Supp. 2d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2006

Plaintiffs respond by arguing under Rule 20(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, well-established case law, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , Superintendent Janey is a proper defendant. (Pis.’ Mot. 2.) … The Court reasoned that even though the District of Columbia was a defendant, “under Monell, District of Columbia officials are not immune from suit because the District of Columbia itself is liable as a ‘person.’ ” Id.

Psychiatric Institute of Washington, D.C., Inc. v. Harris

501 F. Supp. 314 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 24, 1980

The defendant points out that the examples of special care units listed in the regulation-burn, coronary care, pulmonary care, trauma and intensive care-establish a frame of reference against which newly-established units … This provision clearly contemplated that psychiatric and geriatric units such as the GTC could qualify for treatment as special care units.

Maldonado v. District of Columbia

924 F. Supp. 2d 323 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 21, 2013

Finally, the District contends that it is immune from the plaintiff’s claim to punitive damages. Id. at 8–9. … Consequently, the plaintiff’s arguments in his opposition brief regarding the potential qualified immunity available to the Defendant Officers, see Pl.’s Opp’n to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (“Pl.’s Opp’n”) at 6–10, ECF No. 24

Woodhull Freedom Foundation v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2022

“[A]n enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972). … Selective Removal of Immunity Plaintiffs next claim that FOSTA is violative of the First Amendment due to its “selective” removal of Section 230 immunity.

NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. v. Campbell

504 F. Supp. 1365 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 19, 1981

The Campaign was established pursuant to Executive Order 10927, issued on March 18, 1961, by President Kennedy. … This is the category for which the plaintiffs contend they qualify. 3 .

Harris v. Foxx

257 F. Supp. 3d 67 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 6, 2017

[sic] Many of the positions he found himself . . . in the case of the FAA positions, were not clearly lateral positions. … Clearly, additional engagement with Mr. Harris during the reassignment search would have permitted the Department to learn more about Mr.

Ratemo v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 24, 2025

But even as the FSIA grants immunity in the mine run of cases, it withdraws immunity through certain exceptions, “narrowly construed.” Borochov v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 94 F.4th 1053, 1062 (D.C. Cir. 2024). … Courts find the law in “well-established statements of common law,” in particular “state reporters, the Restatement of Torts, and other respected treatises.” Fraenkel v.

Al-Aulaqi v. Obama

727 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 7, 2010

See Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 164 , 110 S.Ct. 1717 (explaining that “[t]he burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court”). … But common law tort claims for assault and intentional infliction of emotional distress do not rise to the level of international torts that are “sufficiently definite and accepted ‘among civilized nations’ to qualify for

Hake v. Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 12, 2022

Thus, it too qualifies as an agency or instrumentality of Iran. In sum, all three Defendants are agencies or instrumentalities of a foreign state, so each is a “foreign state” under the FSIA. … Sovereign Immunity Entities like Defendants are generally immune from lawsuits brought against them in the United States—unless an FSIA exception applies. See 28 U.S.C. § 1604; Mohammadi v.

Haymon v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 2022

Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that Defendant McGunigal is entitled to qualified immunity as to Haymon’s procedural due process claims because McGunigal did not “violate any clearly established right.” … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Solomon v. Garland

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 2024

There is some overlap, however, between the FRA and the FOIA: FRA records qualify as “agency records” under the FOIA, see Kissinger v. Reps. … establish a “clear and indisputable right to relief’ under the PRA because the PRA does not govern the records at issue. These are not PRA records because they qualify as agency records under the FOIA.