Case law

Powell v. District of Columbia

602 A.2d 1123 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 1992

(no immunity) or (2) discretionary (immunity) and ministerial (no immunity). … A “special relationship” can be established by a statute prescribing “mandatory acts clearly for the protection of a particular class of persons rather than the public as a whole,” Morgan v.

William H. Apton v. Jerry v. Wilson (Chief of Police) Roger S. Kuhn v. Jerry v. Wilson, Individually and as Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department

506 F.2d 83 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 16, 1974

But these considerations go to the showing an officer vested with a qualified immunity must make in support of 'good faith belief;' they do not make the qualified immunity itself inappropriate. … A determination whether the defendants' qualified immunity shields the acts at issue in this case requires a more complete record.

Briggs v. Goodwin

384 F. Supp. 1228 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 20, 1974

Plaintiffs rely upon recent cases from the Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Circuits which reject absolute immunity and adopt a qualified immunity for prosecutors. They contend that the recent case of Apton v. … It is well established law that a plaintiff’s choice of venue is given preference and the burden of establishing that an action should be transferred is on the moving party. 1 Moore’s Federal Practice § 1.145 [5], The Court

Davis v. Sarles

134 F. Supp. 3d 223 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2015

Moreover, even if plaintiffs had more clearly stated their case, they face the additional hurdle of the absolute and qualified immunity that prosecutors enjoy. See Atherton v. D.C. … Lieber, 579 F.Supp.2d 175, 179-80 (D.D.C.2008) (discussing prosecutors' qualified immunity from suits relating to their investigative and administrative activities). 7 .

Logiurato v. Action

490 F. Supp. 84 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 29, 1980

Qualified Immunity Liability attaches to the Defendants in the instant case because of the nexus between Defendants’ actions and government control. … The existence of that nexus, however, also provides the Defendants with a qualified immunity from suit. As the Supreme Court stated in Butz v.

Alan McSurely and Margaret McSurely v. John K. McClellan Thomas Ratliff, Individually and as Sometime Commonwealth Attorney for Pike County Kentucky

753 F.2d 88 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 18, 1985

the qualified immunity defense. … The Senate defendants did not violate any “clearly established” fourth amendment rights and thus are immune from civil liability for their investigative activity.

Allen v. Brown

185 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 2016

Bivens established that federal officials can be sued in their individual capacities for actions taken under the color of law that violate the Fourth Amendment, but the doctrine of qualified immunity protects government … For the same reason, it is premature at this juncture to conclude that Chief Brown is protected from liability by the doctrine of qualified immunity.

Boothe v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2026

Supp. 2d 136, 155 (D.D.C. 2010) (holding that “the elements of immunity and liability . . . are essentially the same,” such that if the immunity waiver applies and a cause of action exists, liability is established). … Under the first approach, the remaining Plaintiffs have clearly established Iran’s liability because liability exists whenever the terrorism exception and § 1605A(c) cause of action are satisfied. See Foley, 804 F.

Lugo v. U.S. Department of Justice

214 F. Supp. 3d 32 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2016

The Court need not decide whether such an extension is warranted, however, because qualified immunity is clearly available. … “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 person

Pautsch v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 29, 2024

Section 1608(e) requires that “the claimant establish[] his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1608(e). … to avoid “open[ing] the door to litigation against foreign governments that the Political Branches have not clearly authorized.”

McCormick v. District of Columbia

899 F. Supp. 2d 59 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 22, 2012

Qualified Immunity The foregoing analysis also suffices to show why qualified immunity protects Defendants Corrections Director Brown and Internal Affairs Investigator Patten. … Because McCormick has not shown a violation of a constitutional right, Defendants Brown and Patten are entitled to qualified immunity.

Kalka, Ben v. Hawk, Kathleen

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 23, 2000

Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 841 n.5 (1998), calling it the "better approach" because, if courts "always" ruled first on qualified immunity when no clearly established constitutional right existed, "standards of official conduct … B To repeat, qualified immunity shields these defendants from liability for civil damages if their actions were objective- ly reasonable, as measured in light of the legal rules that were "clearly established" at

Paul Lawrence v. Vernon D. Acree

665 F.2d 1319 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 28, 1981

concerning defendants’ official immunity is whether it is to be absolute or qualified. … The Court held that such officials were generally entitled only to qualified immunity. 438 U.S. at 507 , 98 S.Ct. at 2911 .

Schand v. City of Springfield

380 F. Supp. 3d 106 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 2019

Trial courts in weighing the question of qualified immunity should not "define clearly established law at a high level of generality." Id. (quoting *135 Kisela v. Hughes , 585 U.S. ----, 138 S. … Given the fact that, as of 1986, the law did not clearly establish that malicious prosecution could form the basis of a § 1983 claim, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity on Count IV.

Kumar, ph.D. v. George Washington University

174 F. Supp. 3d 172 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2016

It is then the responsibility of the Provost to “determine whether to replace the challenged member with a qualified substitute.” Id. … This claim thus clearly fails as a matter of law. The claim of false light fails also. Kumar contends that “GW’s presentation of Dr.

Iris N. McKinney v. Charles A. Whitfield

736 F.2d 766 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 15, 1984

Under established precedent, Whitfield unquestionably would be entitled to absolute immunity from common law tort liability for certain conduct taken in the course of administering the FAA’s “furlough” plan. 18 However, Whitfield … Federal law enforcement officers, like their state counterparts, may claim only qualified immunity from suits alleging constitutional violations. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of the Fed.

Robertson v. McCloskey

666 F. Supp. 241 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 24, 1987

their conduct did not “violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … , 753 F.2d at 100 (recognizing qualified immunity for Senate aides charged with violating plaintiff’s constitutional rights); Doe v.

Akers v. Watts

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2010

Qualified 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 … 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.

Nasrin Mohammadi v. Islamic Republic of Iran

782 F.3d 9 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 3, 2015

While the FSIA establishes a general rule granting foreign sovereigns immunity from the jurisdiction of United States courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1604, that grant of immunity is subject to a number of exceptions, see id. §§ 1605- … Immunity under the FSIA therefore applies to all defendants. In a final effort to establish subject-matter jurisdiction, plaintiffs invoke the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350.

Kelly v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · May 31, 2019

Defendants argue that this claim should be dismissed because Officer Gaton is entitled to qualified immunity as it is not “clearly established” that the use of a 12 … Second, even if Officer Gaton’s use of force was objectively unreasonable, to overcome Officer Gaton’s qualified immunity, Plaintiff must still show that the right which was violated was clearly established at the time