Case law

SACE S.p.A. v. Republic of Paraguay

243 F. Supp. 3d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2017

World Wide Minerals, Ltd., 296 F.3d at 1162 (requiring that a foreign state must have “clearly and unambiguously” expressed its intent to waive its sovereign immunity). … which unquestionably qualifies as a public act.

Parker v. Grand Hyatt Hotel

124 F. Supp. 2d 79 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 6, 2000

Count V (False Arrest) To establish qualified immunity from a claim of false arrest, the police must first demonstrate that they had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff. See Saidi v. Washington Metro. … Count VI (Malicious Prosecution) Similarly, to establish qualified immunity from a claim for malicious prosecution, the police must demonstrate that they had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff.

District of Columbia v. Pizzulli

917 A.2d 620 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2007

To the extent that it is relevant to the present case, Doe effectively established limits on official immunity by clearly holding that not all subordinates are automatically entitled to share in the congressional lawmakers … Whether their claim of immunity is (or is not) viable will depend on specific facts yet to be established; at this juncture we simply do not know what those facts are. 10 .

District of Columbia Housing Authority v. Pinkney

970 A.2d 854 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 7, 2009

DCHA Is Not Protected by Governmental Immunity A. The Doctrine of Governmental (or Sovereign) Immunity “The principles of sovereign immunity are well established in the District. … for sovereign immunity.

Bostic v. United States Capitol Police

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2009

To the extent that Bostic alleges a Bivens claim against Banks in his individual capacity, Banks is entitled to qualified -10- immunity. … Banks’ vehicle stop and arrest of Bostic was well within the reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment and therefore Banks could not have known he was violating a clearly established constitutional right; indeed,

Burnham v. Com. of Mass.

299 F. Supp. 3d 319 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 12, 2018

Bringing this action in federal court implicates the Commonwealth's sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. … In order to establish that he is a qualified individual with a disability, Burnham must establish that he: suffers from a physical or mental impairment that affects life activities that are 'major,' i.e. , 'of central importance

Rodriguez v. Shulman

District Court, District of Columbia · 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 … Compl., ¶¶ 49, 56, 57, violate a clearly established constitutional right.

Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration

319 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 28, 2004

First, the act of extending the deadlines clearly involves “an element of judgment or choice.” Macharía, 334 F.3d at 65 . … Moreover, the decision as to when and whether to take enforcement action against unapproved drugs qualifies as discretionary.

Cause of Action Inst. v. Internal Revenue Serv.

390 F. Supp. 3d 84 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 17, 2019

Courts Have Viewed Similar FOIA Disputes-i.e., Those Pertaining To Whether The Defendant Entity Qualifies As An "Agency"-As Properly Resolved Under Rule 12(b)(6) Rather Than Rule 12(b)(1) It is the well-established statutory … Of course, this void is not surprising, as it is well established that the United States has waived its sovereign immunity with respect to valid FOIA claims. See Hajro v. U.S.

Herbage v. Meese

747 F. Supp. 60 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 1990

immunity. … The British Defendants have claimed sovereign immunity. 10 In the instant case, however, before reaching the matter of whether the FSIA is applicable, it is necessary to establish that these are officials of these states,

Mencias Avila v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2019

In Wesby, the Court addressed issues related to probable cause and the “clearly established law” standard in the qualified immunity context, not the principles of causation in the Fourth Amendment seizure context that Defendant … Courts have consistently analyzed an officer- defendant’s “just following orders” defense to a § 1983 action under the second, “clearly established law” prong of the qualified immunity framework, not as a potential barrier

Sampson v. District of Columbia Retirement Board

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2025

have said so clearly. … And “[p]ursuant to” that letter, she “was summarily put on administrative leave”—which itself may qualify as an adverse action. Id. ¶ 73; see Stewart v. U.S.

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

598 F. Supp. 2d 93 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 2009

This argument fails because “the mere fact that records pertain to an individual’s activities does not necessarily qualify them for exemption.” Id. at 894-95 . … The extra burden established by Favish only applies when the requestor asserts government negligence or improper conduct. 541 U.S. at 174 , 124 S.Ct. 1570 . Judicial Watch makes no such assertion here.

Committee of Blind Vendors v. District of Columbia

695 F. Supp. 1234 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 7, 1988

Plaintiffs’ counsel appears to be qualified, and has not been challenged by defendants. … It is not clear whether states waive their immunity by participating in the Randolph-Sheppard Act program.

Lyles v. Hughes

83 F. Supp. 3d 315 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2015

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiff's *326 claims. See Dels.' Mem. at 9. … 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

Phillips v. Spencer

390 F. Supp. 3d 136 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 15, 2019

Bosworth violated Plaintiffs' "clearly established rights"; therefore, both government employees are not entitled to qualified immunity. See Pls.' Opp'n, ECF No. 101 at 31-32. … "The proponent of [the] purported right has the 'burden to show that the particular right in question ... was clearly established' for qualified-immunity purposes." Daugherty , 891 F.3d at 390 (quoting Dukore v.

Jackson v. Metropolitan Police Department District of Columbia

83 F. Supp. 3d 158 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 2015

“Qualified immunity shields federal and state officials from money damages unless a plaintiff alleges facts showing (1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly … “Because it is well-established that ‘an arrest without probable cause violates the [F]ourth [A]mendment,’ the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity only if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed that probable

Royster-Clark Agribusiness, Inc. v. Johnson

391 F. Supp. 2d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2005

“It is to be *24 presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” … As subsection 307(b)(1) provides no jurisdiction in this Court, it is impossible for this case to qualify for the waiver of sovereign immunity.

Lyles v. U.S. Marshalls Serv.

301 F. Supp. 3d 32 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 18, 2018

The Court undertakes a two-part analysis when considering a qualified immunity defense. … It must determine whether the government official violated (i) a clearly established constitutional right that (ii) was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. See Saucier v.

COMMITTEE ON JUD., US HOUSE OF REPRES. v. Miers

558 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 2008

Miers is not entitled to absolute immunity, a qualified immunity analysis should apply. See Tr. at 125-26. … The qualified immunity inquiry, however, does not fit comfortably in the present context.