Case law

Hutira v. Islamic Republic of Iran

211 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 2002

of Iran and its Ministry of Information and Security *117 under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). … The Islamic Republic of Iran, 124 F.Supp.2d 97, 106 (D.D.C.2000), Congress abrogated the sovereign immunity of nations designated as state sponsors of terrorism, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, "to deter terrorist acts

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Harrison

80 F. Supp. 226 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 18, 1948

United States, 81 U.S.App.D.C. 389 , 160 F.2d 229 , compels the conclusion that a prima facie case of' guilt or wrong doing has here been established. … It should also be clearly understood that the Court is not passing on the claim of immunity respecting testimony other than communications between the intervenor and his attorneys.'

Relf v. United States

433 F. Supp. 423 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 1977

What the plaintiffs have clearly attempted to accomplish in this case is to impose Federal Tort Claims Act liability on the strength of their characterization of Dr. … of a mere qualified privilege.

Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2013

Circuit has made clear that self-inflicted prejudice does not qualify as manifest injustice. … Xunxax clearly involved a situation where the victim of torture was within someone’s physical custody, and thus it does not stand for the proposition that mere constructive custody is sufficient to establish “torture.”

Abur v. Republic of Sudan

437 F. Supp. 2d 166 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 10, 2006

Exceptions to Sovereign Immunity Because plaintiffs have established proper service of process, the only potential obstacle that would prevent the Court from proceeding to the merits of the claims is subject-matter jurisdiction … First, it is inconsistent with the well-established rule that “the implied waiver provision of Section 1605(a)(1) must be construed narrowly.” Smith v.

Bottorff v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 29, 2026

“[E]ven if the foreign state does not enter an appearance to assert an immunity defense, a [d]istrict [c]ourt must still determine that immunity is unavailable under the [FSIA].” Verlinden B.V. v. Cent. … As discussed above, Iran-linked militia groups clearly planned these attacks and incorporated tactics and training taught by Iran. Supra at 5-7.

Ford v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 16, 2016

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … To resolve a qualified immunity claim, a court must examine: (1) whether defendant violated a constitutional right; and (2) whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Richardson v. Federal Reserve Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 2016

. . violated my clearly established constitutional rights under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.”). … Compl. ¶ 187 (“Defendants . . . violated my clearly established constitutional rights to a reasonable accommodation, under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”)

Hinton v. Nation

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 16, 2024

However, “a defendant claiming sovereign immunity in a motion to dismiss ‘bears the burden of proving’ they qualify for it.” Broidy Cap. Mgmt. LLC v. Muzin, 12 F.4th 789, 796 (D.C. Cir. 2021) (quoting Lewis v. … Supp. 2d 47, 57 (D.D.C. 2008); (2) the right was clearly established, see Atherton v. D.C. Office of the Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 689 (D.C.

National Ass'n for Advancement of Multijurisdiction Practice v. Roberts

180 F. Supp. 3d 46 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 31, 2015

Defendants conclude that, as a result, the amended complaint fails to establish *55 injury, causation or redressability for those plaintiffs. … Plaintiffs also mischaracterize the scope of the Privileges and Immunities Clause as interpreted in the Friedman decision.

Atchison v. U.S. District Courts

190 F. Supp. 3d 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 27, 2016

Atchison bears the burden of establishing the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity, she has failed to identify any such waiver. … Carpenter, there is no need to address his arguments related to absolute or qualified immunity.

Kroll v. United States Capitol Police

590 F. Supp. 1282 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 5, 1983

Plaintiff argues that notwithstanding the outcome of the officers’ qualified immunity defense the liability of the United States is not coterminous with that of its officers. … As shown supra a showing of good faith and reasonableness establishes both a qualified immunity defense and a direct defense to the intentional torts of false arrest and false imprisonment.

Von Dardel Ex Rel. Wallenberg v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

623 F. Supp. 246 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 15, 1985

The rules of diplomatic immunity are so well established that judicial determination of a violation of diplomatic immunity poses little or no threat to the doctrine of separation of powers. … However, international legal standards with regard to the treatment of diplomats have long been clearly established, and their application should therefore pose *259 little risk of embarrassing the political branches.

Oberwetter v. Hilliard

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 25, 2010

Qualified immunity protects a government official "'from liability for money damages insofar as [the challenged] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … And second, "whether the right was clearly established." Id.

Resolute Forest Products, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture

219 F. Supp. 3d 69 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 30, 2016

Circuit discussed the weight of this very passage in considering whether “back pay” qualified as specific relief. … Circuit then concluded that, contra Bowen, back pay did not qualify as relief other than money damages for § 702’s purposes. Id. at 539.

Chang v. Republic of South Sudan

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2023

Accordingly, “[a] foreign sovereign will not be found to have waived its immunity unless it has clearly and unambiguously done so.” … Circuit has “found the requisite evidence of a foreign state’s intent to qualify as an implied waiver of sovereign immunity” in only three scenarios: (i) the state’s executing a contract containing a choice-of-law

Newdow v. Eagen

309 F. Supp. 2d 29 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2004

The court notes that sovereign immunity also applies to shield the United States from suit. Sovereign immunity bars suits against the federal government unless immunity is waived. FDIC v. … Thus, sovereign immunity applies to bar the United States from suit because there has been no waiver of immunity. 5 .

AL WARAFI v. Obama

821 F. Supp. 2d 47 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 1, 2011

He argues that his detention is unlawful if he qualifies as non-detainable medical personnel under Article 24 or Army Regulation 190-8. … The Convention requires proper identification precisely because Article 24 affords total immunity to qualifying personnel.

Risley v. Hawk

918 F. Supp. 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 15, 1996

Most of the statutes and some of the Constitutional Amendments relied upon by the plaintiff are clearly inapplicable to the facts which he posits. … Federal officials are entitled to qualified immunity from constitutional and statutory claims, and the plaintiff has the burden of showing that the defendants’ alleged actions violated clearly established law or were objectively

Sheikh v. Republic of the Sudan

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2016

Commenced in December 2014, they clearly do not satisfy the first option. What about the second? … Thus, they say, the Aliganga plaintiffs were full members of the Owens case, which qualifies as a related original action under § 1083(c)(3).