Case law

Norden v. Samper

503 F. Supp. 2d 130 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 3, 2007

To establish a prima facie case for failure to accommodate under these standards, a plaintiff must demonstrate that she is a qualified person with a disability; that she can perform the essential functions of her job with … Norden was not “otherwise qualified.” See Def.’s Mem. at 23-34. While that syllogism makes sense, it contains a factual assumption that is not established by the recordnamely, that the accommodations that Dr.

Wang v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 12, 2025

Finally, the Wangs must establish that the conduct supporting proximate cause qualifies as one of the FSIA’s enumerated predicate acts. See § 1605A(a)(1). … Under the first approach to FSIA liability, the waiver of sovereign immunity establishes Iran’s liability to Wang. See, e.g., Levinson, 443 F. Supp. 3d at 176.

Barroca v. Samuels

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2018

Qualified Immunity The Defendants also move to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity. Defs.’ Mem at 18–24. … This immunity is applicable 14 when the challenged “conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Lyles v. Hughes

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2018

“[qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights 13 of which a reasonable person would … The Court undertakes a two- part analysis when considering a qualified immunity defense. lt must determine whether the government official violated (i) a clearly established constitutional right that (ii) was clearly established

United States v. Barsky

72 F. Supp. 165 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 19, 1947

This is not a case of using responsive testimony, received during an inquiry and pertinent to the purpose for which the committee was established, in proving a disrelated offense which occurred theretofore. … Kirby, 74 U.S. 482, 486 , 7 Wall. 482, 486 , 19 L.Ed. 278 , the Supreme Court clearly stated an elementary principle of statutory construction: “ * * * All laws should receive a sensible construction.

Alston v. Town of Brookline

308 F. Supp. 3d 509 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2018

The Individual Defendants are Not Entitled to Qualified Immunity . The individual defendants assert that they are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Governor Rossello , 165 F.3d 106 , 109-10 (1st Cir. 1999) (affirming denial of motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds where relevant free speech rights were clearly established and "mistaken judgment" could not apply

Williams v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · May 9, 2019

Although Stevens left unanswered how courts should go about deciding whether an entity qualifies as a state agency, lower courts uniformly have used the “arm of the state” test used in the sovereign immunity context to … On the question of whether WMATA qualifies as an arm of the state, the court does not write on a clean slate. The D.C. Circuit already has performed an arm-of-the-state analysis and concluded that WMATA so qualifies.

Capitalkeys, LLC v. Democratic Republic of Congo

278 F. Supp. 3d 265 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 6, 2017

This Court has held that a choice of law clause, in which the foreign state agrees that the contract will be governed by the law of a particular country, is sufficient to establish an implicit waiver of immunity. … Moreover, the contract clearly states that the sum is “due upon signing.” (Falkoff Decl. Ex. A at 5.)

Corsi v. Mueller

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 31, 2019

Mueller Is Entitled to Qualified Immunity In the alternative, Corsi’s claim would be barred by qualified immunity. … The party asserting the existence of the right at issue—in this case, Corsi—“has the burden to show that the particular right in question . . . was clearly established for qualified immunity purposes.”

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Adam B. Schiff

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 27, 2020

To the contrary, as defendants point out, “the Committee’s investigation—led by Congressman Schiff in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee—and the subpoenas it issued were clearly and expressly authorized by the full … Thus, the fact that plaintiff seeks disclosure, rather than to establish criminal or civil liability, has no bearing on the application of the Clause to bar this lawsuit.

XP Vehicles, Inc. v. Department of Energy

118 F. Supp. 3d 38 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 14, 2016

immunity. … First of all, the denial of Limnia’s ATVM loan application clearly qualifies as a concrete injury-in-fact, see Care Net Pregnancy Ctr. of Windham Cnty. v. U.S.

Wyatt v. Syrian Arab Republic

736 F. Supp. 2d 106 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2010

Therefore, this action qualifies as a related action under § 1083(c)(3). … Opp’n at 19-20. *112 To establish jurisdiction under the terrorism exception to the FSIA, the plaintiffs “need not establish that the material support or resources provided by [Syria] for terrorist acts contributed directly

Verduzco v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2026

For starters, she struggles to paint a routine removal of a case from state to federal court as a violation of any constitutional right, let alone a clearly-established right, as needed to establish a prima facie Bivens claim … Yet “misrepresentation” and “deceit” are not on that list of torts, and it is far from clear that federal attorneys qualify as “law enforcement officers” under that proviso.

Greenlee v. Board of Medicine

813 F. Supp. 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 3, 1993

Alternatively, an applicant may obtain a license by establishing to the Board’s satisfaction that she meets the requirements for licensure established in the District, or by passing an examination administered by the Board … Alternatively, defendants argue that even if plaintiff’s substantive rights were violated, defendants enjoy qualified immunity, the Board is non sui juris, and punitive damages are not available. II.

Orozco v. Bondi

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2026

The only difference is that FISMA considers one additional criterion under which an information system would qualify as a national security system: if it “is protected at all times by procedures established for information … § 11103(a) and therefore qualifies as a national security system.” Id. ¶ 21.

World Wide Minerals Ltd. v. Republic of Kazakhstahn

116 F. Supp. 2d 98 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2000

Foreign sovereigns traditionally have enjoyed immunity from suit in courts of the United States. The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) of 1976 lays out the conditions of immunity. … The finding that Kazakhstan waived its immunity to suit renders irrelevant discus *104 sion of whether or not the activities of Kazakhstan qualify as commercial activity under FSIA.

Donahue v. Potter

District Court, District of Columbia · May 20, 2026

“Few doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction[.]” Pierson v. … Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 11 (1991) (holding that “judicial immunity is an immunity from suit, not just from ultimate assessment of damages”); Bailey v. Kay, 296 F. App’x 96, 97 (D.C.

Bickford v. Government of the United States of America

808 F. Supp. 2d 175 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 6, 2011

Bickford’s claims for money damages for alleged constitutional violations are barred by sovereign immunity. It is established that the United States “may be sued only insofar as it consents to suit. … Bickford is not proceeding in forma pauperis and therefore does not qualify for appointment of counsel from the Court’s Civil Pro Bono Panel. See Greer v.

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Becerra

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2025

This view also aligns with sovereign immunity concerns: for interest to attach against the agency, Congress must speak clearly. See Tex. Clinical Labs, Inc. v. Johnson, 2009 WL 1574465, at *5 (N.D. Tex. June 4, 2009). … define what qualifies as a “final determination” for purposes of triggering interest payments.

United States v. Poindexter

698 F. Supp. 300 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 16, 1988

Clearly the defendants’ Fifth Amendment rights are not then affected. … Two replacement grand jurors were qualified, one in December, 1987 and one in January, 1988, after the immunized testimony had been taken before the Select Committees.