Case law

Stoddard v. Wynn

168 F. Supp. 3d 124 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2016

Parole Commission and Absolute Immunity It is well established that “parole board officials, like judges, are entitled to absolute immunity from suit for damages when they serve a quasi-adjudicative function … But the alternative of qualifying [absolute] immunity would disserve the broader public interest.”). Mr.

Lang v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2023

immunity, she has failed to establish a basis for municipal liability. 1. … Qualified immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials sued in their individual capacity unless they “violated a statutory or constitutional right” that was “‘clearly established’ at the time of the

Chen v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2009

Nor may the Court conclude that Officer Ha is entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. … “the existence of qualified immunity will depend on the particular facts”).

Jo v. District of Columbia

582 F. Supp. 2d 51 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 28, 2008

Defendants, however, have not claimed qualified immunity from suit in this case. See generally Defs.’ Mot. & Reply. … In the absence of qualified immunity, a plaintiff may assert a § 1983 claim against any individual who was personally and directly involved in the alleged violation. See Cameron v.

Thomas v. SHINSEKI

657 F. Supp. 2d 74 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2009

Such immunity is qualified, and government actors who violate clearly established constitutional rights cannot benefit from it. See Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194 , 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 , 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). … Thus, courts must determine whether a constitutional violation occurred, and if so, whether the right that was violated was clearly established. Courts have discretion to address either of these questions first.

Costin v. Corporation of Washington

6 F. Cas. 612 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Oct 15, 1821

That it could not reasonably be supposed to be 'the intention of Congress to banish old and long-established inhabitants of the city who have acquired real estates therein, whose lives have been unexceptionable, who can neither … A citizen of one Stale, coming into another State, can claim only those privileges and immunities which belong to citizens of the latter State, in like circumstances.

Lutcher S. A. Celulose E Papel and F. Lutcher Brown v. Inter-American Development Bank

382 F.2d 454 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 13, 1967

In 1960 President Eisenhower issued, as we noted, his Executive Order qualifying the Bank for immunities available under the terms of the International Organizations Immunities Act. … The Eisenhower Order qualified the Bank “as a public international organization entitled to enjoy the privileges, exceptions, and immunities conferred by the International Organizations Immunities Act.”

MacHaria v. United States

238 F. Supp. 2d 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 30, 2002

immunity. 2. … Assuming arguendo that such action would qualify as “detention,” Plaintiffs have still failed to allege that the action was “prolonged,” or “arbitrary.”

Morton Halperin v. Henry Kissinger Morton Halperin v. Henry Kissinger, Richard M. Nixon, John N. Mitchell, and H. R. Haldeman

606 F.2d 1192 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 12, 1979

The defendants claim absolute immunity from this action and dispute the District Court’s refusal to bar the suit on qualified immunity grounds. … objective basis for qualified immunity.

Unification Church v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

762 F.2d 1077 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 4, 1985

We are here presented with an organization that clearly fits within subsection (ii) but does not clearly fall under subsection (iii). … The statutory language of this provision, which differs from subsection (d), clearly requires that an organization meet both the net-worth and the employee limits to qualify for fees.

Bible Way Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of Apostolic Faith of Washington v. Beards

680 A.2d 419 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 24, 1996

The order (1) has conclusively determined (by rejecting) Bible Way’s claim of immunity from suit under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause; (2) has resolved a claim of immunity unrelated to the merits of the Beards … In this case, the complaint does not expressly allege, or even clearly imply, that the church has adopted the accounting standards referenced in the complaint.

Caldwell v. Kagan

777 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 18, 2011

A district court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction if plaintiff cannot establish Article III standing. See Weaver’s Cove Energy, LLC v. … As absolute immunity clearly protects the district court judge and the court of appeals judges from this lawsuit, all claims against those defendants must be dismissed. 2 III.

Barnhardt v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 16, 2010

Qualified immunity therefore protects Sloan from suit. … Hence, his conduct is protected by qualified immunity. D.

Singletary v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 18, 2010

Review of that case confirms that this question is relevant only to determining the availability of a qualified immunity defense. See id. … (“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

John Does 1-7 v. Taliban

101 F.4th 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 26, 2024

must “establish both that the foreign state is not immune from suit and that the property to be attached or executed against is not immune” from execution. … The cross-reference textually confirms that, while Section 201(a) of the TRIA applies to foreign states that qualify as “terrorist part[ies]” under 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, it does so only when those foreign states already have

American Bankers Ass'n v. Bennett

618 F. Supp. 1528 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 1985

In addition, Education argues that the relief sought is barred by sovereign immunity. The Court concludes that the plaintiff has standing and that the doctrine of sovereign immunity does not apply. A. … Offset is a qualified and limited method of collection.

De Letelier v. Republic of Chile

488 F. Supp. 665 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 1980

The matter does not end there, however, for this jurisdictional grant is qualified in that it has been made subject to any proper interposition of the defense of sovereign immunity, a defense upon which the defendant places … The Republic .of Chile has cited several cases decided since the passage of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that it contends establish foreign states under the Act are to be granted immunity for any tortious act committed

Bein v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · May 4, 2026

Judge Upadhyaya began by addressing Plaintiffs’ evidentiary requests, including qualifying their experts and refusing to take judicial notice of certain reports and testimony submitted in prior FSIA cases. … Plaintiffs also qualify as claimants or victims under the FSIA because they were U.S. nationals at the time of the attacks. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(2)(A)(ii)).

Heroth v. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

565 F. Supp. 2d 59 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 10, 2008

STANDARD OF REVIEW In challenging a court’s subject matter jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602 et seq., the defendant bears the burden of establishing that none of the exceptions … This is, at most, the type of incidental benefit that does not qualify for third party beneficiary status.

Goode v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2021

Qualified Immunity Finally, the individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity to the extent plaintiff sues them in their individual capacities. … Simply put, plaintiffs allegedly infringed rights were not “clearly established” at the time COST made its decision.