Case law

Anderson v. Gates

20 F. Supp. 3d 114 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 6, 2013

To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show (1) that the facts alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the violation … Here, Anderson fails to demonstrate a clearly established right, hence the Court need only reach the second prong.

Diag Human S.E. v. Czech Republic - Ministry of H

824 F.3d 131 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 31, 2016

Additionally, the district court concluded the Czech Republic had not waived its sovereign immunity under the terms of the Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (a)(1). … “Commercial” merely means “matters which have a connection to commerce,” and the Framework Agreement is clearly connected to commerce. Any “argument to the contrary will not sell.” Belize Soc. Dev.

Belhas v. Ya'Alon

515 F.3d 1279 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 15, 2008

An individual qualifies for this immunity when he acts in his official capacity for the state. See Jungquist, 115 F.3d at 1027 . … To suppose that the sovereign’s immunity protecting the individual official in the performance of his sovereign’s business vanishes the moment he resigns, retires, or loses an election is to establish that he had no immunity

Kelton v. District of Columbia

413 A.2d 919 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 1980

[failure] to disclose alone establish liability to the patient. An unrevealed risk that should have been made known must materialize, for otherwise the omission, however unpardonable, is legally without consequence. . … The only tortious conduct which is clearly pleaded is assault and battery.

S.H. v. District of Columbia

270 F. Supp. 3d 260 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 2017

Police officers enjoy qualified immunity from personal liability for civil damages if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable [officer] would have known … A plaintiff seeking to overcome a claim of qualified immunity bears the burden of showing that the constitutional right that the officers allegedly violated was clearly established at the relevant time. See Dukore v.

Intl Actn Ctr v. United States

365 F.3d 20 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 16, 2004

Merits Qualified immunity protects government officials ‘‘from lia- bility for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … If the court establishes the violation of a constitutional right, it must then ‘‘proceed to determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations.’’ Id. (quotation omitted).

Griggs v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

232 F.3d 917 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 1, 2000

In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that a police officer is constrained by both regulations and clearly established policies and stan- dards such that there is no need to be concerned that tort liability for … issue of Officer Hay- mans' entitlement to absolute immunity, we do not reach the issue of any claim that he may have to qualified immunity.

Liser v. Smith

254 F. Supp. 2d 89 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2003

In the present case, the Court concludes that Detective Smith’s conduct relating to plaintiffs arrest and continued detention are protected by qualified immunity. … As such, defendant’s actions in preparing the affidavit are protected by qualified immunity.

King David and Virginia C. David v. Sheldon Cohen

407 F.2d 1268 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 10, 1969

It is well established that public officers are immune from civil suits for money damages for negligent, non-ministerial acts committed by them while acting within the scope of their au *1271 thority and in discharge of their … These cases generally do not qualify the immunity upon the absence of a proven claim of malice on the part of the official because “it is impossible to know whether the claim is well founded until the case has been tried,

Harry Kenneth Clark v. Library of Congress

750 F.2d 89 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 24, 1984

In establishing the Mt. … Since this is not a Bivenstype action, we need not address the question of qualified immunity. 31 .

Meyer v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

929 F. Supp. 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 24, 1996

Courts have held that plaintiffs relying on Bivens are held to a "heightened pleading standard” requiring plaintiffs to “specify the 'clearly established’ rights they allege to have been violated with ... precision].” … Additionally, 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

Millicom International Cellular, S.A. v. Republic of Costa Rica

995 F. Supp. 14 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 1998

The plaintiffs’ other allegations also fail to establish “direct effects” under this clause. Id. … Additionally, the plaintiffs cannot rely on any repercussion felt by their shareholders and creditors to establish “direct effects” under this clause because any derivative harm would be too indirect to qualify as an “immediate

Powell v. Nigro

601 F. Supp. 144 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 16, 1985

Thus, defendants are at most entitled to qualified immunity if their acts were performed in good faith. … It would be premature for the Court to rule at this time on whether the defendants are protected by qualified immunity as “the scope of that immunity will necessarily be related to facts as yet not established either by affidavits

Lyles v. Micenko

468 F. Supp. 2d 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 29, 2006

This “qualified immunity” acts as a defense for governmental officials, including police officers, from claims of liability under § 1983. Anderson v. … Lyles, the Court finds that the Officers would be entitled to qualified immunity because their decision to arrest and charge Ms. Lyles was reasonable. See Hunter v.

Jiggetts v. Cipullo

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 23, 2019

Thus, a defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity if (1) the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was “clearly established at the time.” Id. at 231. … by qualified immunity.

Vasquez v. County of Will, Illinois

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2021

“An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … To defeat a defense of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show that: (1) “an official ‘violated a constitutional right’” and (2) “‘the right was clearly established’ at the time of the violation.” Fenwick v.

Rodriguez v. Shulman

844 F. Supp. 2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 21, 2012

Qualified Immunity In addition, qualified immunity bars claims against public officials for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Compl., ¶¶ 49, 56, 57, violate a clearly established constitutional right. All claims against federal and state officials relating to Isidoro’s disbarment, accordingly, are barred by qualified immunity. *13 5.

Briggs v. Goodwin

569 F.2d 10 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 1, 1977

The fate of an official with qualified immunity depends upon the circumstances and motivations of his actions, as established by the evidence at trial." 17 80 The decision whether qualified or absolute immunity is appropriate … Where the common law had established a qualified immunity for the official, the Court has maintained that standard in the § 1983 actions as well: Pierson v. Ray, supra (policemen); Wood v.

Thorp v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · 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.” Id. at 818 (emphasis added).

Gates v. District of Columbia

66 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2014

Qualified immunity The police defendants seek summary judgment in their favor, asserting that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from liability for civil damages for official actions taken. … However, “qualified immunity does not shield government officials who ‘violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ” Arrington, 473 F.3d at 338 -39 (quoting