Case law

Jermyl Moody v. United States

82 A.3d 769 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 2013

RUIZ, Senior Judge, dissenting: For the first time since the court established a procedure for judicial review of defense requests for immunity in Carter v. … The witness in Moore was clearly lying about an issue material to the prosecution.

Staten v. United States

562 A.2d 90 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1989

In Belton, supra, the Court recognized that while these principles are stated clearly enough, they had not been as clearly applied to specific cases. The Court noted that the protection of the Fourth ... … A highly sophisticated set of rules, qualified by all sorts of ifs, ands, and buts and requiring the drawing of subtle nuances and hairline distinctions, may be the sort of heady stuff upon which the facile minds of lawyers

Jenco v. Islamic Republic of Iran

154 F. Supp. 2d 27 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 2, 2001

With that established, the Court turns to the next issue: who were his captors? B. … Thus, the pains normally attendant to being a hostage, most notably the loss of liberty and contact with loved ones, although clearly tortuous within the common meaning of the term, cannot qualify as torture under 28 U.S.C

Smith v. Dist. of Columbia

306 F. Supp. 3d 223 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 30, 2018

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 would have known … Because this is the sort of behavior that qualified immunity is meant to protect, the Court concludes that Jones is entitled to qualified immunity. 2. Jeanette Myrick is entitled to qualified immunity.

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)).

Taylor v. Bureau of Indian Affairs

District Court, District of Columbia · May 9, 2023

Here, plaintiff has not clearly identified any final agency action. … Plaintiff has failed to establish that the United States has expressly consented to suit. Similarly, also applicable here, a court is immune from damages suit for actions taken in the performance of its duties.

Stone v. Donovan

72 F. Supp. 3d 186 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2014

All three were dismissed because Stone did not meet his burden to establish that sovereign immunity had been waived. Id. at 52. The court also held that the suits were improper collateral attacks on Stone’s sentence. … a waiver of sovereign immunity.

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.

Hansen v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 17, 2024

Because the attack does not qualify as an “extrajudicial killing” nor as “aircraft sabotage” under the “state-sponsor-of-terrorism exception” of the FSIA, 28 U.S.C. § 1605A, Iran is immune from suit. … Supp. 2d 204, 212 (D.D.C. 2012) (“In FSIA default judgment proceedings, the plaintiff may establish proof by affidavit.”).

Davis v. District of Columbia

156 F. Supp. 3d 194 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 15, 2016

For this reason, “the protection of qualified immunity is available if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed that [his or her actions were] lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the officers … Cir. 2012) (officer entitled to qualified immunity where “warrant was not facially invalid”).

Cutchin v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2019

Here, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity unless Cutchin shows the violation of a constitutional right and that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation. … “Even if there is a genuine dispute about the reasonableness of an officer’s use of force, he is protected by qualified immunity unless his force violated clearly established law.” Hedgpeth v.

Murphy v. Commonwealthexec. Office of the Trial Court

335 F. Supp. 3d 137 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2018

Post-Termination Process Following his termination, the Plaintiff immediately initiated the grievance process as established by the Collective Bargaining Agreement between the Trial Court and the Plaintiff's union. … Congress has clearly not abrogated the Commonwealth's immunity respect to these state law claims. Further, the Commonwealth has not waived its sovereign immunity either to tort claims or to claims under Mass. Gen.

Richardson v. Sauls

319 F. Supp. 3d 52 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 18, 2018

Smith is protected by qualified immunity because no constitutional violations occurred, much less any "clearly established" violation of Mr. Richardson's constitutional rights. Id. at 20 . … Smith do not plausibly allege any constitutional violation of a right that was "clearly established." Mr. Smith is entitled to qualified immunity. Count Eleven of Mr.

Karriem v. District of Columbia

641 F. Supp. 394 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 29, 1986

These cases on “qualified immunity” dictate that government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … No clearly established constitutional or statutory right to such retraining can be demonstrated.

Doe v. District of Columbia

796 F. Supp. 559 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 1992

Once Doe has established a prima facie case of discrimination, the burden shifts to the defendant to show that Doe is not otherwise qualified for the job of a firefighter or that the denial of a firefighter position to Doe … Is Doe “Otherwise Qualified”?

United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

86 F.R.D. 603 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 18, 1979

The court stated that a *634 qualified immunity for opinion work product is “incompatible with Hickman v. Taylor and certainly the subsequent Rule 26(b)(3) . . ” Id. at 735. … Under the terms of the rule, “[t]he first sentence grants a qualified immunity ‘to documents and tangible things . . . prepared in anticipation of litigation.’ ” Id. at 734.

COMMITTEE ON THE JUD. US HOUSE OF REP. v. Miers

575 F. Supp. 2d 201 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2008

The Executive seizes on that and likens this situation to a denial of qualified immunity from trial, which “generally constitute^] irreparable injury ... because of the irretrievable loss of immunity from suit.” … But that overlooks the significant differences between absolute or qualified immunity from a civil damages lawsuit and the Executive’s asserted immunity from congressional testimony here.

Chen v. District of Columbia

256 F.R.D. 267 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 25, 2009

Nor may the Court conclude that Officer Ha is entitled to qualified immunity at this stage of the proceedings. … that a plaintiff anticipate the assertion of qualified immunity ... and plead allegations that will defeat that immunity” — at least in those cases where “the existence of qualified immunity will depend on the particular

United States v. Chatman Electrical Services, Inc. (In Re Chatman Electrical Services, Inc.)

82 B.R. 646 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 6, 1987

Chatman will interfere with the Chapter 11 proceedings over which the bankruptcy court clearly has jurisdiction. … As to the sovereign immunity issue, see In Re Success Tool and Mfg.

Jolley v. Unknown Named Bop Directors

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2024

Qualified Immunity for Blanco, Nylen, Antonelli and Ballesteros Insofar as plaintiff demands compensatory damages, see Pl.’s Opp’n at 15-16, defendants argue that qualified immunity protects them from plaintiff’s … Thus, the Court concludes that qualified immunity protects those defendants also. 16 analysis for resolving qualified immunity claims by government officials.