Case law

Logiurato v. Action

490 F. Supp. 84 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 29, 1980

Qualified Immunity Liability attaches to the Defendants in the instant case because of the nexus between Defendants’ actions and government control. … The existence of that nexus, however, also provides the Defendants with a qualified immunity from suit. As the Supreme Court stated in Butz v.

Allen v. Brown

185 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 2016

Bivens established that federal officials can be sued in their individual capacities for actions taken under the color of law that violate the Fourth Amendment, but the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government … For the same reason, it is premature at this juncture to conclude that Chief Brown is protected from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Boothe v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2026

Supp. 2d 136, 155 (D.D.C. 2010) (holding that “the elements of immunity and liability . . . are essentially the same,” such that if the immunity waiver applies and a cause of action exists, liability is established). … Under the first approach, the remaining Plaintiffs have clearly established Iran’s liability because liability exists whenever the terrorism exception and § 1605A(c) cause of action are satisfied. See Foley, 804 F.

Lugo v. U.S. Department of Justice

214 F. Supp. 3d 32 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2016

The Court need not decide whether such an extension is warranted, however, because qualified immunity is clearly available. … “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 person

Pautsch v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 29, 2024

Section 1608(e) requires that “the claimant establish[] his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e). … to avoid “open[ing] the door to litigation against foreign governments that the Political Branches have not clearly authorized.”

McCormick v. District of Columbia

899 F. Supp. 2d 59 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 22, 2012

Qualified Immunity The foregoing analysis also suffices to show why qualified immunity protects Defendants Corrections Director Brown and Internal Affairs Investigator Patten. … Because McCormick has not shown a violation of a constitutional right, Defendants Brown and Patten are entitled to qualified immunity.

Schand v. City of Springfield

380 F. Supp. 3d 106 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 2019

Trial courts in weighing the question of qualified immunity should not "define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Id. (quoting *135 Kisela v. Hughes , 585 U.S. ----, 138 S. … Given the fact that, as of 1986, the law did not clearly establish that malicious prosecution could form the basis of a § 1983 claim, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity on Count IV.

Kumar, ph.D. v. George Washington University

174 F. Supp. 3d 172 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2016

It is then the responsibility of the Provost to “determine whether to replace the challenged member with a qualified substitute.” Id. … This claim thus clearly fails as a matter of law. The claim of false light fails also. Kumar contends that “GW’s presentation of Dr.

Robertson v. McCloskey

666 F. Supp. 241 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 24, 1987

their conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … , 753 F.2d at 100 (recognizing qualified immunity for Senate aides charged with violating plaintiff’s constitutional rights); Doe v.

Akers v. Watts

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2010

Qualified Immunity “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Because qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability, . . . it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell v.

Kelly v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · May 31, 2019

Defendants argue that this claim should be dismissed because Officer Gaton is entitled to qualified immunity as it is not “clearly established” that the use of a 12 … Second, even if Officer Gaton’s use of force was objectively unreasonable, to overcome Officer Gaton’s qualified immunity, Plaintiff must still show that the right which was violated was clearly established at the time

In Re Series 7 Broker Qualification Exam Scoring Litigation

510 F. Supp. 2d 35 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 7, 2007

Here, plaintiffs argue that NASD’s and EDS’s activities would not qualify under the Butz factors for the type of official immunity applied to SROs in Austin and Barbara . … a registered broker-dealer are qualified to transact securities-related business with the public.

Smith v. Lanier

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 27, 2011

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY The individually-named police officers will not be liable for damages if they are entitled to qualified immunity, which shields “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . … clearly established”4 at the time of the defendants’ alleged misconduct.

Al-Zahrani v. Rumsfeld

684 F. Supp. 2d 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 16, 2010

Yet, the Court is not at liberty to disregard clearly established, controlling precedent. See, e.g., United States v. … District of Columbia, 235 F.3d 637, 652 (D.C.Cir.2001), the individual defendants in this case are also protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity- 6 .

Taylor v. Reilly

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2010

Supp. 2d 232, 242, n.13 (D.D.C. 2008) (noting cases granting quasi-judicial absolute immunity to probable cause hearing examiners and parole commissioners); compare Atherton, 567 F.3d at 683-84 (rejecting absolute immunity … Even if Wynn’s functions are not quasi- judicial, defendants argue correctly that she would be shielded by qualified immunity because it was not clearly established in 2005–nor is it today– that the Commission’s retroactive

Roth v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2021

“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 … The plaintiffs have not, however, pointed to a violation of any clearly established Fourth Amendment right that can overcome the defendants’ entitlement to qualified immunity.

Smith v. United States of America

121 F. Supp. 3d 112 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 14, 2015

Defendants further argue that the existence of probable cause, the statute of limitations, and the doctrine of qualified immunity likewise doom Smith’s Bivens claim against Rogers and Anyaso. (Id. at 8, 10, 24). … immunity (see, e.g., Defs.’

Conn v. American National Red Cross

168 F. Supp. 3d 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2016

Therefore, the Supreme Court has held, when Congress establishes a federal entity—which ordinarily would be protected by sovereign immunity from all aspects of civil liability and litigation—and “launche[s] [it] into the … Not only has the Red Cross failed clearly to show that Congress intended its sue-and-be- sued clause to be anything other than a full waiver of immunity, the Court concludes that the statutory structure of the ADEA and

Robinson v. District of Columbia

736 F. Supp. 2d 254 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2010

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … They do not address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the rights at issue were “clearly established” at the time of the alleged violation.

Holsey v. Chandler

598 F. Supp. 368 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 6, 1984

These defendants are entitled to at least a qualified immunity from damages for acts taken within the scope of their authority. … There is absolutely no suggestion that these defendants “violate[d] clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Fitzgerald v.