Case law

Davidson v. United States Department of State

113 F. Supp. 3d 183 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2015

The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that a federal employee defendant is immune from liability for civil damages unless the plaintiff establishes that: (1) the defendant’s conduct violated the Constitution and ( … 2) the constitutional right that was violated was so “clearly established . . .

Jones v. Quintana

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2009

The Court therefore declines to consider the merits of Defendant Quintana’s qualified immunity claim at this time. … allegations in light of the relevant qualified immunity case law.8 3.

Robinson v. District of Columbia

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 … 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.

Caldwell v. Caesar

150 F. Supp. 2d 50 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 22, 2001

. § 1983 may be entitled to qualified immunity if the conduct alleged “does not violate ... clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … In determining whether a particular official is entitled to the immunity from suit accorded by qualified immunity, the Court must determine whether the defendant’s conduct was objectively reasonable under “clearly established

Noha v. Darchiev

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 2025

Notably, embassies qualify as a “foreign state” under the FSIA, see 28 U.S.C. § 1608(a); Jouanny v. Embassy of France in the United States, 220 F. Supp. 3d 34, 38-39 (D.D.C. 2016) (citing Howe v. … Plaintiff presents boilerplate assertions contending that Defendants are without absolute immunity. See Notice, ECF No. 14.

Gustave-Schmidt v. Chao

226 F. Supp. 2d 191 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2002

Apparently, while the plaintiff was qualified for this position at all three of these GS levels, the DOL chose an applicant from outside of the ILAB who was “a white female under the age of forty years” and who did not have … Finally, the defendants’ personnel decisions regarding the plaintiffs suspension and subsequent termination also clearly fall within the discretionary function exception to the FTCA.

Lutes v. Goldin

62 F. Supp. 2d 118 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 1999

Furthermore, as discussed above, Plaintiff is unable to establish that he was qualified for promotion to GS-15. … With respect to his race and gender claims, Plaintiff has failed to establish that he is qualified for an upgrade.

De Csepel v. Republic of Hungary

169 F. Supp. 3d 143 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2016

FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, “a foreign state shall be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States” unless one of several enumerated exceptions … The burden of persuasion, however, “rests with the foreign sovereign claiming immunity, which must establish the absence of the factual basis by a preponderance of the evidence.” Chabad, 528 F.3d at 940.

Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. Periodical Correspondents' Ass'n

365 F. Supp. 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 11, 1973

The Courts have a responsibility to preserve the freedom of the press by barring the imposition of limitations upon the equal access of newsmen to facts of public consequence unless such limitations are clearly justified … The only other immunity that might be applicable is the so-called Official Immunity Doctrine discussed in Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564 , 79 S.Ct. 1335 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1434 (1959).

Lerner v. District of Columbia

362 F. Supp. 2d 149 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 2005

Third, they maintain that individual Defendants Patterson, Henneberry, and George are entitled to qualified immunity. 1. … Individual Defendants Patterson, Henneberry, and George are not entitled to qualified immunity Defendants maintain that individual Defendants Patterson, Henneberry, and George are entitled to qualified immunity.

United States Ex Rel. Long v. SCS Business & Technical Institute

999 F. Supp. 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 1998

First, 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is clearly distinguishable from the FCA because § 1983 establishes a cause of action for individual plaintiffs, 4 whereas the FCA establishes civil liabilities for frauds at the expense of the United … Under the Eleventh Amendment, a suit by an individual against a state, in federal court, proceeds only if “Congress clearly intended to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity ...

Elshazli v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2019

The officers seek summary judgment, claiming that they are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. Defs.’ Mot. 6–13. The Court agrees. … Officers Javelle and Konkol are entitled to qualified immunity unless Elshazli can show that (1) the officers violated a constitutional right; and (2) that the right was “clearly established” at the time of the violation

Nabaya v. Byron

264 F. Supp. 3d 187 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 4, 2017

Instead of absolute immunity, however, they assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity. Dkt. 13 at 16–18; Dkt. 16 at 2. Nabaya did not respond to either motion despite further warnings from the Court. … Although the complaint does not clearly delineate the basis for Nabaya’s claim, it appears to assert that Simopoulos committed perjury under § 1623 by appearing as counsel in this action without first filing certain documents

CONTINENTAL TRANSFERT TECHNIQUE LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF NIGERIA Et Al., Defendants

308 F.R.D. 27 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2015

is “clearly aimed at ‘Execution’” of Nigerian property that may be immune from execution under the FSIA. … Judge Friedman has established that Nigeria waived its immunity to suit pursuant to section 1605(a)(6) of the FSIA, and that it owes a valid money judgment to Continental.

Doe v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2020

WMATA insists that it is immune from tort claims that arise out of its governmental functions , and that the negligence count at issue here qualifies as such. … As explained fully below, this Court concludes that WMATA has sovereign immunity with respect to both of these categories of legal claims under well-established precedents that demarcate the boundaries of governmental

Nikbin v. Islamic Republic of Iran

517 F. Supp. 2d 416 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2007

Int’l Nominees Establishment v. … Substantive Liability It is now well established that the terrorism exception of § 1605(a)(7) “merely waives the immunity of a foreign state without creating a cause of action against it.” Cicippio-Puleo v.

Rivera v. Saris

130 F. Supp. 3d 397 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2015

. § 924(c); and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon with at least three prior qualifying convictions under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(e). … But like sovereign immunity, legislative immunity is jurisdictional in nature: This Circuit has held that this type of immunity, arising from the Speech or Debate Clause of the Constitution, art.

United States v. Onassis

125 F. Supp. 190 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 1954

The test clearly cannot be that the indictment must be brought under the Shipping Act or whatever act contains an immunity provision. … It is true, however, that the Court clearly described the invoice. as the private paper of the defendant.

Wamai v. Republic of Sudan

174 F. Supp. 3d 242 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 23, 2016

Although the Owens I decision identified deficiencies in the plaintiffs’ allegations, it clearly indicated that Sudan might not be immune. See, e.g., 374 F. … Sudan makes this argument most clearly in Mwila and Khaliq, see, e.g., Mem. Supp. Mot.

Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization v. Shultz

370 F. Supp. 325 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 1973

that: the “Federal taxes” exemption to the Declaratory Judgment Act prevents the grant of such relief; the plaintiffs lack standing to sue; the issuance of revenue rulings may not be reviewed; the doctrine of sovereign immunity … The fact that the administration of Revenue Ruling 69-545 will not produce protesting taxpayers eager to challenge its policy and application should not immunize the Ruling from such a testing where, as shown earlier, the