Case law

Estate of Williams ex rel. Overton v. Pasquotank County Parks & Recreation Department

366 N.C. 195 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 24, 2012

The General Assembly therefore declares that the public good and the general welfare of the citizens of this State require adequate recreation programs, that the creation, establishment, and operation of parks and recreation … Here the Court of Appeals made a passing reference to section 160A-351, which is clearly relevant to the question of whether defendants’ conduct— maintaining and operating the Swimming Hole at Fun Junktion — is a governmental

Middlesex Construction Corp. v. State Ex Rel. State Art Museum Building Commission

307 N.C. 569 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 8, 1983

. § 143-135.3, arguing that in light of the Smith decision, to hold that the statute establishes mandatory procedures applicable to plaintiffs claim would violate due process and equal protection; that is, G.S. § 143-135.3 … The Smith majority was clearly concerned with the constitutionality of its decision, and Justice Lake, in his dissenting opinion, discussed the question in some detail.

Clary v. Alexander County Board of Education

286 N.C. 525 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 12, 1975

, waiver of governmental immunity to any extent was sufficient to preclude the granting of motions for directed verdicts on the ground of governmental immunity. … A directed verdict will not be entered on the ground of contributory negligence unless the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff, so clearly establishes contributory negligence that no other reasonable

Happel v. Guilford Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 21, 2025

The Framers clearly intended federal law to trump conflicting state law, even state constitutional law. … (conditioning liability immunity for program planners and qualified persons on their “reasonabl[e] belie[f]” that the recipient was in the geographic area covered by the declaration).

McWilliams v. Parham

269 N.C. 162 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 20, 1967

It is well established in this jurisdiction that assumption of risk is not available as a defense to one not in a contractual relationship to the plaintiff. Clark v. … contributory negligence, which the defendant has alleged in his first further answer and defense, and which is in no way affected by our decision upon the matters now before us, and the defense of assumption of the risk is clearly

North Carolina Insurance Guaranty Ass'n v. Board of Trustees

364 N.C. 102 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 15, 2010

The legislature has clearly waived sovereign immunity through the Workers’ Compensation Act for claims by governmental employees, and this waiver applies to the provisions of the Guaranty Act involving workers’ compensation … This interpretation follows the longstanding requirement that a statutory waiver of immunity be strictly construed, in accordance with a clearly expressed legislative intent.

Koontz v. City of Winston-Salem

280 N.C. 513 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 15, 1972

The moving party has the burden of clearly establishing the lack of triable issue, and his papers are carefully scrutinized and those of the opposing party are indulgently regarded. … The case law defining governmental and proprietary powers as relating to municipal corporations is consistent and clearly stated in this and other jurisdictions.

State v. Hardy

293 N.C. 105 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 14, 1977

Clearly, Taylor v. … Nobles, supra, the work product privilege, like any other qualified privilege, can be waived.

Atlantic Coast Line Railroad v. State Highway Commission

268 N.C. 92 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 21, 1966

The Legislature clearly intended the statute to apply to the facts that exist here and provide a remedy such as public safety, convenience and necessity might require. … The law regarding immunity of the State to suit and the exceptions thereto have been concisely and clearly set out by Bobbitt, J. in Teer Company v.

Farmer v. Troy Univ.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 4, 2022

¶ 11 The doctrine of sovereign immunity, establishing that a sovereign cannot be sued without its consent, see Alden v. … Justice Iredell did, in the light of history and experience and the established order of things, the views of [Hamilton and Iredell] were clearly right,—as the people of the United States in their sovereign

Security Mills of Asheville, Inc. v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.

281 N.C. 525 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 16, 1972

Adams, 102 U.S. 66 , 26 L.Ed. 52 , and that the national bank may waive its immunity from suit in other courts, which waiver may be express or implied. First National Bank of Charlotte v. … We decline to give an ambiguous Act of Congress such a construction in the absence of a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States clearly so requiring.

Wood v. Guilford County

355 N.C. 161 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 1, 2002

Examining the special relationship exception in the context of the present case, we fail to see how, standing alone, plaintiff’s status as an AOC employee working at the courthouse qualifies as “special” for purposes of the … Consequently, we do not address governmental immunity or plaintiffs allegation of waiver of governmental immunity.

Crazie Overstock Promotions, LLC v. State of North Carolina

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 11, 2021

, public official immunity, and qualified immunity and asserting that Crazie Overstock’s request for a declaratory judgment that its Rewards Program did not violate N.C.G.S. § 14-306.4 failed to state a claim … , sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and estoppel

Farmer v. Troy Univ.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 4, 2022

¶ 11 The doctrine of sovereign immunity, establishing that a sovereign cannot be sued without its consent, see Alden v. … Justice Iredell did, in the light of history and experience and the established order of things, the views of [Hamilton and Iredell] were clearly right,—as the people of the United States in their sovereign

ET & WNC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. Currie

248 N.C. 560 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 30, 1958

When we consider a claim of immunity from taxation, we must come to grips with realities, not shadows. … The theory, which once won a qualified approval, that a tax on income is legalty or economically a tax on its source, is no longer tenable.”

State v. Williams

305 N.C. 656 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 2, 1982

Grant of immunity in court proceedings, — (a.) … (c) In a jury trial the judge must inform the jury of the grant of immunity and the order to testify prior to the testimony of the witness under the grant of immunity.

Fowler v. Valencourt

334 N.C. 345 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 30, 1993

’s claims for assault and false arrest and imprisonment, and qualified immunity on the part of Officer Valencourt. … “When two statutes-apparently overlap, it is well established that the statute special and particular shall control over the statute general in nature, even if the general statute is more recent, unless it clearly appears

Estate of Fennell Ex Rel. Fennell v. Stephenson

354 N.C. 327 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 9, 2001

The facts do not establish a genuine issue of material fact as to either of the two elements which Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing to defeat Stephenson’s motion. … This Court has also clearly stated that when a plaintiff sues a state officer for violating the North Carolina Constitution, he must sue the officer in his official capacity.

Est. of Long v. Fowler

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 13, 2021

“It has long been established that an action cannot be maintained against the State of North Carolina or an agency thereof unless it consents to be sued or upon its waiver of immunity, and that this … This establishes that defendants are agents of NCSU.

Watson v. Commissioners of Pamlico

82 N.C. 17 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1880

The county of Pamlico, as laid off and defined by the act of February 8th, 1872, was constituted out of detached portions of Craven and Beaufort counties, and when formed was “invested with all the rights, privileges .and immunities … “To establish a county or incorporate a town is a legislative act,” say the court, and “ consequently the general assembly may exercise this power whenever and in such manner, as in its opinion the public good will thereby