Case law

Redmond v. United States Parole Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 4, 2019

The Chair and Commissioners enjoy qualified immunity for each of Redmond’s claims. Cf. Redmond v. … right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Rimsat, Ltd. v. Hilliard

207 B.R. 964 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 10, 1997

The four-prong collateral estoppel test has clearly been met. This court is therefore barred from ruling upon the previously determined issue of Hil-liard’s immunity under the FSIA. … As such, he does not qualify for immunity under the FSIA, despite his status as a Nevis appointed receiver. Jugobanka d.d. New York Agency v. Unis Int’l Corp., No. 93C1865, 1995 WL 3987 , at *4 (N.D.Ill.

Barnes v. District of Columbia

238 F. Supp. 3d 106 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2017

7 clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’” … immunity analysis, which requires that the constitutional violation be apparent to a reasonable officer in light of clearly established law.

Joseph C. Spagnola, Jr. v. William Mathis, (Two Cases) Joseph C. Spagnola, Jr. v. William Mathis

809 F.2d 16 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 6, 1987

It concluded that federal officials would be granted immunity only if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Appellants cannot plausibly suggest that a reasonable person would not find these rights to be “clearly established.”

Melton v. District of Columbia

85 F. Supp. 3d 183 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2015

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff pleads facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the .right was “clearly established … Because qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability, ... it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell v.

Estate of Phillips v. District of Columbia

355 F. Supp. 2d 212 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 11, 2005

immunity. … In -its analysis, the Circuit Court noted that for an official to be personally liable, “that official must have violated a constitutional right, and that right must have been ‘clearly established’ — ‘the contours of the

Johnson v. Wilson

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 10, 2024

force against Plaintiff and Officer Wilson was not entitled to qualified immunity as a bystander. … immunity and qualified privilege.

OLANIYI v. District of Columbia

763 F. Supp. 2d 70 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2011

Accordingly, the FBI agents who conducted the inventory search are entitled to qualified immunity. … Unlike the Rule 56(f) motion directed at the District of Columbia, in the qualified immunity context the Court "must exercise its discretion in a way that protects the substance of the qualified immunity defense.

Pimentel v. City of Methuen

323 F. Supp. 3d 255 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 26, 2018

Qualified Immunity Defendants further contend that Police Chief Solomon and the other individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity protects public employees "from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Burns v. Levy

373 F. Supp. 3d 149 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 14, 2019

With the passage of the Act, Section 44-802 clearly expanded the peer review privilege by extending immunity to those sharing information with any of the three categories of entities in Section 44-801(6). … Air Force entities qualifies as a peer review body under Section 44-801(6), Defendants are not entitled to immunity under the peer review privilege of Section 44-802.

Jones v. Quintana

658 F. Supp. 2d 183 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2009

The Court declines to consider the merits of Defendant Quintana’s qualified immunity claim at this time. … in light of the relevant qualified immunity case law. 8 3.

Brown v. Wilhelm

923 F. Supp. 2d 314 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 15, 2013

immunity. … of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”)

Schultz v. Doher

335 F. Supp. 3d 177 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2018

Qualified immunity serves as a shield to 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 … Courts use a two-part test to determine whether qualified immunity applies: (1) whether the facts alleged by the plaintiff make out a violation of a constitutional right; and if so (2) whether the right was clearly established

Banks v. York

515 F. Supp. 2d 89 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 17, 2007

Immunity “[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 … established at the time Tally acted, and Tally is therefore entitled to qualified immunity.

Flythe Ex Rel. Estate of Flythe v. District of Columbia

791 F.3d 13 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 19, 2015

clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Ct. 2012, 2023 (2014) (“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

Taylor v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2019

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields police officers, including WMATA police officers, 4 “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … A defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity if the plaintiff establishes that (1) the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was “clearly established” at the time of the defendant’s

IT & E Overseas, Inc. v. RCA Global Communications, Inc.

747 F. Supp. 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 1990

Moreover, private parties acting in compliance with clearly articulated government policies and programs are immunized from antitrust liability to the same extent as the government entity. … to the qualified immunity afforded to state and *12 local governments.

Ghawanmeh v. Islamic Saudi Academy

672 F. Supp. 2d 3 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 27, 2009

Because defendants, who bear the burden of establishing that none of the FSIA exceptions to sovereign immunity apply, *9 challenge only the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs jurisdictional claims, the Court will take plaintiffs … Clearly, there can be no more obvious and implicit waiver of sovereign immunity than the sovereign’s express intent to subject itself to the jurisdiction of a foreign court as demonstrated by a choice of law clause within

Mercurio v. Town of Sherborn

287 F. Supp. 3d 109 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2017

Qualified Immunity The defendants argue that they enjoy qualified immunity for their conduct even if they used excessive force. … "The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

Leach v. Clay

District Court, District of Columbia · May 3, 2022

Legal Standard “Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Rivas-Villegas v. … The qualified-immunity inquiry can be resolved on either of its two prongs: (1) whether the plaintiff has made out a violation of a constitutional right, or (2) whether the right in question was clearly established at the