Case law

Simon v. Bickell

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2010

“[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 rights of which … “A plaintiff who seeks damages for violation of constitutional or statutory rights may overcome the defendant official’s qualified immunity only by showing that those rights were clearly established at the time of the conduct

Beynum v. Boteler

623 F. Supp. 279 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 1985

Immun¶ity From Suit Defendant Turner argues that he is immune from suit for two reasons: (1) that he is immune for his “discretionary acts as a high level supervisor,” and (2) that he is entitled to qualified immunity under … The test for when a government official has qualified immunity is set forth in Harlow v.

Holman v. Williams

436 F. Supp. 2d 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 2006

Mayor Williams also is immune from personal liability for alleged violations of plaintiffs right to due process by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity “shields State officials from liability for their discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Paul Bame v. Todd Dillard

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 29, 2011

Qualified immunity is “a defense that shields officials from suit if their conduct ‘d[id] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” Ortiz v. … Most notably, in deciding whether for purposes of qualified immunity the law was clearly established in 2002, the majority fails to distinguish, as established by Harlow and its progeny, between the role of the court to determine

Berman v. Crook

293 F. Supp. 3d 48 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 2, 2018

When a plaintiff brings an action for money damages against a federal official in his individual capacity, the official may entitled to qualified immunity "insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … qualified immunity."

Singh v. District of Columbia

881 F. Supp. 2d 76 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 7, 2012

was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct. … that such violations had actually occurred, and because the “right to be free from detention except on reasonable suspicion or probable cause was clearly established” at the time.

Davis v. Transportation Security Administration

264 F. Supp. 3d 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 2017

Plaintiff simply made no effort to respond to either of Defendants’ immunity arguments. WMATA argued that it was immune from suit under the WMATA Compact. WMATA’s Mot. Dismiss at 5–7. … Supp. 3d at 113 (describing Plaintiff’s burden to establish subject- matter jurisdiction).

Thorp v. Dist. of Columbia

327 F. Supp. 3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 30, 2018

Qualified Immunity Thorp next sets his sights on the qualified-immunity analysis in the prior Opinion. … The case went on to hold that qualified immunity should instead rely on "the objective reasonableness of an official's conduct, as measured by reference to clearly established law."

Mykola Ivanenko v. Viktor Yanukovich

995 F.3d 232 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 23, 2021

It is the defendant’s burden to establish sovereign immunity, “including that ‘the plaintiff’s allegations do not bring its case within a statutory exemption to immunity.’” Id. (quoting Phoenix Consulting Inc. v. … A foreign state explicitly waives its sovereign immunity in a treaty or contract only if it “clearly and unambiguously” agrees to suit. World Wide Minerals, Ltd. v. Republic of Kazakhstan, 296 F.3d 1154, 1162 (D.C.

Saddler v. D'AMBROSIO

759 F. Supp. 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 28, 1990

Defendants further assert that Officer D’Ambrosio is immune from suit because Mr. Saddler cannot point and has not pointed to any action of D’Ambrosio that is violative of clearly established law or is unreasonable. … Saddler’s Fourth Amendment claim against Officer D’Ambrosio is not barred by Officer D’Am-brosio’s qualified immunity.

Z Street v. Shulman

District Court, District of Columbia · May 27, 2014

Rather, the circuit has 16 clearly established that whether or not the AIA and DJA prohibit a suit against the IRS depends on whether the action is fundamentally a “tax collection … Under the firmly-established doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States is immune to suit unless Congress has expressly waived the immunity defense. See, e.g., United States v.

Wuterich v. Murtha

562 F.3d 375 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 14, 2009

Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 (1985) (same for qualified immunity); Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731, 742-43 (1982) (same for absolute presidential immunity); Kilburn v. … As explained below in Part C, Wuterich clearly has failed to meet even this minimal burden.

Westfahl v. District of Columbia

75 F. Supp. 3d 365 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 2014

Less clear is whether Officer Thau’s decision to strike Westfahl with his baton is protected by qualified immunity. … Thus, Sergeant Mack is entitled to qualified immunity as well.

Z Street v. Shulman

District Court, District of Columbia · May 27, 2014

Rather, the circuit has 16 clearly established that whether or not the AIA and DJA prohibit a suit against the IRS depends on whether the action is fundamentally a “tax collection … Under the firmly-established doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States is immune to suit unless Congress has expressly waived the immunity defense. See, e.g., United States v.

Doe, John v. Exxon Mobil Corp

473 F.3d 345 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 12, 2007

More specifically, the doctrines of qualified immunity and absolute immunity do not just protect covered individuals from judgments; they also provide protection from “the risks of trial — distraction of officials from their … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 816 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)) (qualified immunity). See also Nixon v.

Singletary v. District of Columbia

685 F. Supp. 2d 81 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 18, 2010

("Qualified immunity ... generally shields State officials from liability for their discretionary functions ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … As qualified immunity is not at issue in this case, the District’s argument on this point is irrelevant. 6 .

Oscarson v. Office of the Senate Sergeant at Arms

550 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 12, 2008

Forsyth, addressing officials’ qualified immunity—an immunity that was itself entirely a judicial creation. 472 U.S. at 524-30. … Id.  7 Although this case concerns federal sovereign immunity rather than qualified immunity, we cannot imagine why the Johnson principles would not apply with equal force to the immunity

John Briggs v. Guy Goodwin

698 F.2d 486 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 17, 1983

with good-faith belief, that affords a basis for qualified immunity.” … In that decision, we determined that the requirements of Goodwin’s job justified only a qualified immunity, an immunity that depended on the good faith of his actions.

Caldwell v. Kagan

865 F. Supp. 2d 35 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 31, 2012

All three defendants, by virtue of acting in an official capacity, enjoy qualified immunity against “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … immunity.

Wheeler v. American University

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 18, 2022

qualified immunity purposes. … clearly established.