Case law

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

Matthews v. Hesburgh

504 F. Supp. 108 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 30, 1980

Of course, if these rules or understandings gave an employee tenure or a clearly-defined term of employment, procedural due process protections would also attach. See Perry v. … doctrine of official immunity.

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.

Simpson v. Leavitt

437 F. Supp. 2d 95 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 23, 2006

And the other factors establishing her prima facie case in the race discrimination context also establish her prima facie case in the age discrimination context. See 29 U.S.C. § 633a(a); see also Part II.B, supra. … This is clearly demonstrated by Ms. Simpson's assertion that her participation in monitoring is evidence of her interest in issues relevant to the Program Management Branch. See Opp. at 13. Klafehn states that Ms.

Excavation Construction, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

624 F. Supp. 582 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 21, 1984

Second and more generally, WMATA, as a governmental entity, is wholly immune from an award of punitive damages against it. … It is a challenge to that process as established and conducted by WMATA. It depends not at all on any of the contract’s particulars.

Clayton v. District of Columbia

999 F. Supp. 2d 178 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2013

The motion was granted on the ground that the claims against the DCNG in Counts Four and Five were barred by sovereign immunity. Id. at 199-201. … Clayton’s claims against the DCNG in Counts Four and Five of her amended complaint were dismissed because they were barred by sovereign immunity.

Eason v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

512 F. Supp. 1199 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 1981

He could select any highly qualified candidate; qualified candidates could be selected only if the official justified bypassing the highly qualified individuals. … Given everehanging technologies, consideration that recent experience is more important than years’.past experience is clearly related to the Administration’s goals and operations.

Doe v. Islamic Salvation Front (FIS)

993 F. Supp. 3 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 3, 1998

It clearly dealt with the issue. … Defendant Haddam argues that the FIS does not qualify as a de facto state.

Farhat v. Iran, the Islamic Republic of

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 21, 2024

Sept. 25, 2019) (“There is almost total ‘overlap between the elements of [§ 1605A(c)’s] cause of action and the terrorism exception to foreign sovereign immunity,’ and a plaintiff that offers proof sufficient to establish … a waiver of sovereign immunity under § 1605A(a) has also established entitlement to relief as a matter of law.”)

Monbo v. Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 2023

Bush, 261 F.3d 1037, 1055 (11th Cir. 2001) (“the federal APA clearly does not apply to state agencies.”). … Cir. 2021) (“[Plaintiffs] have the burden of establishing the court’s personal jurisdiction over the defendant.”).

Scott v. J.P. Morgan Chase and Co.

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 30, 2017

If the facts as alleged fail to establish that a plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, then a court must grant the defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion. See Am. Chemistry Council, Inc. v. U.S. … To claim this form of qualified immunity, the private contractor must assert “that (1) it was working pursuant to the authorization and direction of the federal government, and (2) the acts of which the plaintiff complained

Crumpton v. United States

843 F. Supp. 751 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 14, 1994

Under the FTCA, the government waives its sovereign immunity from suit in tort for money damages. 5. … This waiver of immunity is subject to several exceptions, two of which are relevant to the FOIA releases which are the basis of the wrongs alleged by plaintiff. 6.

Lewis v. Elliott

628 F. Supp. 512 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 17, 1986

Here, it cannot be said that undisputed facts establish probable cause since no facts other than defendant Elliott’s testimony confirm the alleged conversation or its content. … Finally, our Court of Appeals has cautioned that under the “well-settled common law principle”, grants of absolute immunity “ought to be interpreted narrowly to serve only the purposes justifying the immunity.”

Shao v. Roberts

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 17, 2019

Legal Standard It is well established that courts must dismiss complaints in a civil action in which a party “seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such a relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(2); see … Cir. 2006) (“It is well established that judicial immunity ‘extends to other officers of government whose duties are related to the judicial process’” (quoting Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 569 (D.D.C. 1959))).

Curtis v. Peters

107 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 24, 2000

Fully qualified is a positive assessment. … Did The Board Impermissibly Apply A “Best Qualified” Standard Instead Of The “Fully Qualified” Standard?

United States of America v. Iss Marine Services, Inc.

905 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2012

“It is well established that the proponent of a privilege bears the burden of demonstrating facts sufficient to establish the privilege’s applicability.” … In this sense, fact work product only retains “qualified protection.” In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d at 811.

Ungar v. Islamic Republic of Iran

211 F. Supp. 2d 91 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 26, 2002

expert testimony adduced by the plaintiffs as true, and accepting the confession statements of Ghanimat’s group as true notwithstanding suggestions that some of them may have been coerced, Pl.Ex. 3 at 2, the most that is clearly … Islamic Republic of Iran, 151 F.Supp.2d 27, 47-48 (D.D.C.2001), in separating the immunity analysis from the liability analysis. 2.

Cheek v. Washington

333 F. Supp. 481 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 1971

The Administrative Procedure Act established review as of right, rather than by leave, of all District of Columbia administrative agencies, and the DCCA was made the avenue of review. … Congress has exhibited clearly its purpose to bring about uniformity of decision by this centralization of review in the one court. 3 .