Case law

Smith v. Nixon

807 F.2d 197 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 5, 1986

In Halperin II, 807 F.2d at 188, we held that objective reasonableness of national security motivation is all that need be established to sustain that element of the qualified immunity defense consisting of the contention … There is no dispute that the challenged wiretap was illegal (albeit not in violation of clearly established law). See United States v.

Jackson v. District of Columbia

672 F. Supp. 22 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 1987

does not violate clearly established ... rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U.S. at 818,102 S.Ct. at 2738. … Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986) (recognizing qualified immunity of state police officers). 7 The Court has also made clear that the qualified immunity defense is intended not only

Stevenson v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 2022

on qualified immunity grounds. … In finding that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity, the court further emphasized that “the true test for qualified immunity in this case is whether, as [the plaintiff] alleges, the law clearly prohibited

Watson v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 19, 2024

Mot. at 6 n.5, arguing only that Director Faust is not entitled to qualified immunity. … Escorsio, 764 F.3d 102, 111 (1st Cir. 2014) (refusing, at the summary judgment stage, to grant qualified immunity to officers based on defendants’ concession that “clearly established law” required officers to take “some

Parker v. K & L Gates, LLP

76 A.3d 859 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 2013

conduct at issue did not violate clearly established law. … creates law that governs the official’s behavior,” even where court also determines that official is entitled to immunity because unconstitutionality was not clearly established).

Wallace v. District of Columbia

685 F. Supp. 2d 104 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2010

The officers’ stronger argument is that they are entitled to qualified immunity. The officers’ qualified immunity defense is evaluated under the two-step analysis set forth in Saucier v. … “If the facts alleged do establish that a constitutional right was violated,” the Court “go[es] on to ask whether that right was ‘clearly established.’ ” Id.

John Doe v. Donald Rumsfeld

683 F.3d 390 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 15, 2012

This case fits squarely within a well-established exception that the denial of a motion to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity has sufficient finality to warrant interlocutory review, and within the language of Hartman … Qualified immunity protects public officials personally sued for damages “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Bolger v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

If, however, there is a constitutional violation, the second step in the analysis is to determine "whether the right was clearly established." Id. … Circuit cases discussed here establish that such a rule could not be considered "clearly established" in this Circuit at that time.

Johnson v. District of Columbia

461 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2006

First he argues that the claims against him must be dismissed because he is entitled to qualified immunity. … The next question in deciding qualified immunity is whether the constitutional rights in question were clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. Int’l Action Ctr., 365 F.3d at 24 .

Expeditions Unlimited Aquatic Enterprises, Inc., a Corporation, Norman Scott v. Smithsonian Institution

566 F.2d 289 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 16, 1977

The fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial.” Imbler v. … or qualified immunity.

Celikgogus v. Rumsfeld

920 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 1, 2013

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 would have … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless the plaintiffs alleged (1) a violation of a constitutional right that (2) was “clearly established” at the time of violation. Saucier v.

McNair Builders, Inc. v. Taylor

3 A.3d 1132 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 2010

As the privilege is absolute, not qualified, and well established in our jurisdiction, we would anticipate few cases where the conduct of litigants and counsel will be influenced by the “small risk that the law will be misapplied … Attorney General’s claim of qualified immunity was appealable under the collateral order doctrine. 4 .

Bettis v. Bowser

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 21, 2020

“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 … Defendants “are entitled to qualified immunity under § 1983 unless (1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.”’

Bowser v. Smith

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 18, 2018

Smith argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he violated no “clearly established constitutional right in failing to properly escort Plaintiff’s assailant through the prison cell-block.” Smith Mot. … “In order to defeat qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage, plaintiff must allege facts that plausibly establish” that qualified immunity does not apply. Boatwright v. Jacks, 239 F.

A. Eugene Ramey v. Charles Bowsher, Comptroller of the United States

915 F.2d 731 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 5, 1990

Earl Wysong, a former employee at the GAO, to establish that his eoworker, Ms. Drake, should not have been promoted because she was not qualified for the GS-14 position. … The record also supports the District Court’s view that Drake was not only qualified for the position, but probably even better qualified than Ramey.

Pearson v. District of Columbia

644 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2009

Bush, 448 F.Supp.2d 198, 200 (D.D.C.2006). 12 In this case, the individual defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions did not violate clearly established law. (Defs.’ … Having concluded that plaintiffs allegations do not show a violation of any constitutional right, the Court need not determine whether the right infringed was “clearly established” such that qualified immunity applies.

Winfield v. Town of Andover

305 F. Supp. 3d 286 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 4, 2018

As the constitutional rights in this area are thus not firmly established, the persons sued are entitled to qualified immunity. *293 Under the qualified immunity doctrine, "government officials performing discretionary functions … "Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery." Mitchell v.

Harper v. Blumenthal

478 F. Supp. 176 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 1979

Butz incorporated the test for qualified immunity developed for state officials in Scheuer v. … Although not clearly established, it also appears that a cause of action for damages may be stated under the procedural due process component, if it is found that no other remedy is available.

Conset Corp. v. Community Services Administration

624 F. Supp. 601 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 1985

“the defendant officials were entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law.” … The Court finds that the government officials are entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. a) The Appropriate Qualified Immunity Standard The former Procunier test encompassed both objective and subjective components

Parker v. Brown

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 19, 2010

“Qualified immunity . . . generally shields [governmental] officials from liability for their discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of … the right at issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct.”