Case law

Hawkins v. State

342 N.C. 188 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1995

Corum v. University of North Carolina

330 N.C. 761 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 31, 1992

After filing an answer containing defenses, which included sovereign immunity and qualified immunity, defendants moved for summary judgment. … This is because “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Dobson v. Harris

352 N.C. 77 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 16, 2000

App. 660 , 233 S.E.2d 624 (1977) (summary judgment appropriately entered against the plaintiff where the defendant supported motion by establishing affirmative defense of qualified privilege, and the plaintiff, who thereafter … In her answer defendant Harris asserted the affirmative defense of “qualified immunity,” or, more precisely, a statutory, good-faith immunity based upon her compliance with N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-543 and -550.

Hwang v. Cairns

Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 23, 2025

Cairns is entitled to qualified immunity or whether Dr. … Even if qualified privilege applies, Dr.

Craig Ex Rel. Craig v. New Hanover County Board of Education

363 N.C. 334 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 18, 2009

On the other hand, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is not a constitutional right; it is a common law theory or defense established by this Court.... … Nevertheless, as outlined above, this Court did clearly establish the principle that sovereign immunity could not operate to bar direct constitutional claims.

Williams Ex Rel. Williams v. Randolph Hospital, Inc.

237 N.C. 387 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 25, 1953

Thus the rule to which we adhere is that of qualified immunity. The plaintiff, conceding the existence of the rule which obtains with us, takes a dual position in prosecuting this appeal. … The range of decision is from absolute liability to complete immunity, with the weight of authority being on the side of immunity, either total or qualified.

Sides v. Cabarrus Memorial Hospital, Inc.

287 N.C. 14 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 14, 1975

Said executive committee . . . shall in general carry out the spirit and intent of this Act in establishing and maintaining a county public hospital. . . . … Here, however, we believe the following language clearly indicates the direction we should now take: “[W]e recognize merit in the modern tendency to restrict rather than to extend the application of governmental immunity.

Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.

215 N.C. 491 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 3, 1939

We do not think ourselves warranted, therefore, in extending the exemption established by the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, beyond its terms. … The unemployed could not, under the requirements of the statute, qualify to receive compensation for their involuntary unemployment during that year.

White v. Trew, 366 NC 360

366 N.C. 360 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 25, 2013

Defendant denied the material allegations of the complaint and asserted a number of defenses, including qualified privilege and sovereign immunity. … The court concluded that sovereign immunity did not bar plaintiff’s claim because “plaintiff sought to sue defendant in his individual capacity and drafted the complaint in such a way that clearly indicated this intent.”

Clark v. Statesville.

139 N.C. 490 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 15, 1905

A consideration of article 6 of the Constitution, and of the system of conducting elections in this State established under its provisions, leads us, without any hesitation, to the conclusion that such a construction would … In all .other respects, the two classes of voters, those who are educationally qualified and those otherwise qualified under said section, are to remain on the same footing and to be subject alike to the same laws regulating

Motley v. State Board of Barber Examiners

228 N.C. 337 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 10, 1947

We are of the opinion that the 1947 amendment admitting qualified veterans to the trade is not necessarily of that character. … Tbe Unconstitutionality must clearly appear before tbe Court can so declare it. Brumley v. Baxter, 225 N. C., 691 , 36 S. E. (2d), 281 ; S. v. Brockwell, 209 N. C., 209 , 183 S. E., 378 .

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.

Land v. Whitley

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 17, 2025

Qualified Pers., 294 N.C. 200, 208 (1978)). … WHITLEY Opinion of the Court provides qualifying parties with immunity from civil liability, does not provide immunity from suit.

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.

Moore v. City of Creedmoor

345 N.C. 356 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 10, 1997

Further, we hold that neither defendant is entitled to “qualified immunity.” … As we stated above, qualified immunity may protect government officials from personal liability for performing the discretionary functions of an office to the extent that such conduct does not violate “clearly established

MacFarlane v. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

244 N.C. 385 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 26, 1956

The General Assembly in 1951, by adopting ch. 1059, Session Laws 1951, now codified as General Statutes ch. 143, art. 31, granted a qualified or limited waiver of its immunity against suits for personal injury or property … It prescribes no rules or regulations to be followed by the newly established court in hearing such claims, nor does it limit or prescribe the procedure except as noted.

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’

Little v. . Miles

204 N.C. 646 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 10, 1933

abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. … Its sole purpose was to declare to the several states that whatever rights, as you grant or establish them to your own citizens, or as you limit or qualify or impose restrictions on their exercise, the same, neither more

Rabon v. Rowan Memorial Hospital Incorporated

269 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 20, 1967

This approach assumes the donor’s intent and supports only total immunity, but it has not been abandoned when courts have gone from total to qualified immunity. College v. Hughes, supra at 823. … John’s Hosp., 165 Ohio St. 467 , 135 N.E. 2d 410 (immunity totally rejected only as to hospitals; other charities retain qualified immunity); Tomasello v.

State v. Osborne

372 N.C. 619 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 16, 2019

We find that the statute clearly contemplates that a large number of these cases will never reach the courtroom halls; hence, the prohibition against charging a person. Commonwealth v. … for limited immunity under this section."