Case law

Orange County v. Heath

282 N.C. 292 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 15, 1972

Clearly a minute change in a procedural rule would not embrace so fundamental a change as to abolish governmental immunity. … The concept of sovereign immunity is so firmly established that it should not and cannot be waived by indirection or by procedural rule. Any such change should be by plain, unmistakable mandate of the lawmaking body.

Smith v. Ford Motor Co.

289 N.C. 71 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 29, 1976

or not, with services rendered by an employee of the establishment and may, in good faith, inform the employer of his reason for so doing. … In so doing, Ford was clearly acting to protect its good will and its interest in its own product. In United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v.

State v. Kinston Charter Acad.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 17, 2021

and that it did not qualify as a “person” for purposes of the False Claims Act. … Board of Trustees of Guilford Technical Community College, 364 N.C. 102, 112 (2010), in which this Court held that the General Assembly had clearly waived sovereign immunity by making the Workers’

Shelton v. Morehead Memorial Hospital

318 N.C. 76 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 29, 1986

Documents and information which are otherwise immune from discovery under § 95 do not, *85 however, lose their immunity because they were transmitted to the board or Tinnell, or both. V. … We have found no case other than Cameron in North Carolina which has applied the defense of qualified privilege in libel actions to render peer review proceedings immune from discovery and introduction into evidence.

Providence Volunteer Fire Dep't, Inc. v. Town of Weddington

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 19, 2022

, legislative immunity, public official immunity, and qualified immunity. … Thus, the Town does not qualify for governmental immunity under this threshold inquiry.

Lewis v. Barnhill

267 N.C. 457 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 16, 1966

Its superintendent on the job was not qualified to operate one. Foard relied on CERCO to *462 provide a qualified crane operator and did not undertake to determine Barnhill’s qualifications. … Its job superintendent was not qualified to operate a crane.

Burgess v. Your House of Raleigh, Inc.

326 N.C. 205 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 7, 1990

The debilitating effects of AIDS come, not from the virus itself, but from these opportunistic diseases that the immune system cannot fight. … Because he does not qualify as a “handicapped person” under the act, he necessarily cannot qualify as a “qualified handicapped person” because that definition assumes, as an initial matter, that one is handicapped.

Bailey v. State

330 N.C. 227 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 6, 1991

Johnson, 821 F.2d 361, 365 (7th Cir. 1987) (to be “clearly established,” the right allegedly violated “must be clearly recognized in existing case law.”). In Swanson v. … V, § 2(1), Secretary Powers properly enforced Chapter 792 because the law in this regard was not “clearly established.”

Ponder v. Cobb

257 N.C. 281 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 15, 1962

Qualified Privilege — In less important matters where the public interest does not require such absolute immunity, the plaintiff will recover in spite of the privilege, if he can prove that the words were not used bona fide … Unless these facts are so established the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover.

N.C. Bar and Tavern Ass'n v. Stein

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 22, 2025

For the reasons set forth herein, plaintiffs have failed to establish that they qualify for recovery under the Emergency 2 Plaintiffs also asserted claims for constitutional and regulatory takings. … In crafting the Emergency Management Act, the General Assembly clearly contemplated situations under which affected persons could receive compensation.

Byrd v. Avco Corp.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 20, 2026

App. 687 (2011), establishes a bright-line rule that appellate jurisdiction can never lie from an interlocutory order denying reconsideration. But Zairy does not go that far. … Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 208–09 (1978) (collecting cases). An exception to this general rule exists where an interlocutory order affects a substantial right. Davis v.

State v. Allison

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 12, 2025

This Court clearly stated, “[t]o resolve this case, we must therefore examine what is permitted under the castle doctrine.” Id. at 521. … The castle doctrine provides immunity from criminal and civil liability for qualifying occupants, and the erroneous instructions here foreclosed defendant’s ability to argue, or that the jury could consider, that his actions

Providence Volunteer Fire Dep't, Inc. v. Town of Weddington

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 19, 2022

, legislative immunity, public official immunity, and qualified immunity. … Thus, the Town does not qualify for governmental immunity under this threshold inquiry.

Mullis v. Sechrest

347 N.C. 548 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 6, 1998

This allegation establishes that defendant Sechrest is an agent of defendant Board. Further, plaintiffs set forth only one claim for relief in their complaint. … Thus, in order for defendant Sechrest to have an opportunity to prepare a proper defense, the pleading should have clearly stated the capacity in which he was being sued.

White v. Mote

270 N.C. 544 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 20, 1967

Further, the physical facts do not establish clearly that no other conclusion might be drawn except a conclusion of excessive speed. … In regard to the defendants’ contention that the municipality had not waived governmental immunity, the statute (G.S. 160-191.1) clearly states: “Such immunity shall be deemed to have been waived in the absence of affirmative

Spruill v. Lake Phelps Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.

351 N.C. 318 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 4, 2000

Considering this statute as a whole, it establishes immunity for the ordinary negligence of either a rural fire department or a fireman of the department “at the scene.” … When viewed in this context, it clearly appears that immunity would attach to a rural fire department if its acts or omissions complained of were either (1) related to the suppression of a reported fire, or (2) related to

RH Bouligny, Inc. v. United Steelworkers of Amer.

270 N.C. 160 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 3, 1967

Qualified Privilege — In less important matters where the public interest does not require such absolute immunity, the plaintiff will recover in spite of the privilege, if he can prove that the words were not used bona fide … We now hold that the defense of qualified privilege extends to statements spoken or published in good faith by a labor union in the course of a campaign to solicit members or to establish itself as the authorized representative

North Carolina Ex Rel. Taylor v. Carolina Racing Ass'n

241 N.C. 80 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 10, 1954

gambling and the operation of gambling establishments as inimical to the public morals. … There would seem to be no legal *95 difference if the Morehead City Act had attempted to authorize the establishment of such racing course with its apparati in Clay County upon approval by the qualified voters of the Town

DiCesare v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hosp. Auth.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 18, 2020

In light of their belief that “[t]he heart of [the Hospital Authority’s] argument—and central to the [trial court’s] decision—is that as a ‘body corporate and politic’ it qualifies as a public entity and ‘quasi-municipal … The Hospital Authority responds that it “clearly argued below that [p]laintiffs had failed to allege sufficient facts to establish a monopoly,” that it did not advocate the application of the American Motors test, and that

State v. . Love

229 N.C. 99 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 19, 1948

In the instant cases it might be true that if the fact had been established that the officer was only a “feigned accomplice” without intention to become a criminal, the argument that his credibility could not be assailed … The conditions under which immunity may be claimed and given are clearly set forth in S. v. Luquire, supra. It does not appear in the evidence here that Mr.