Case law

Corum v. University of North Carolina Ex Rel. Board of Governors

97 N.C. App. 527 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 20, 1990

Similarly, the Court concluded that denial of a public official’s claim of qualified immunity from suit, to the extent that it turns on the legal questions of whether the conduct complained of violated “clearly established … Further, the qualified immunity argument turns on the issue of whether “clearly established law” has been violated. Harlow, supra. In accord with Mitchell v.

Price v. Davis

132 N.C. App. 556 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 16, 1999

, and qualified immunity. … to qualified immunity.

Roberts v. Swain

126 N.C. App. 712 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 15, 1997

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … However, qualified immunity could operate to shield Swain and McCracken from plaintiff’s damages suit “if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed’ ” plaintiff’s arrest “ ‘to be lawful, in light of clearly established law

Slade v. Vernon

110 N.C. App. 422 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 1, 1993

The sole question upon review is whether the trial court erred in denying defendants’ summary judgment motion based upon public officers’ immunity, governmental immunity and qualified immunity. … In general, qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing discretionary functions insofar as their conduct does not violate “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Lee v. Greene

114 N.C. App. 580 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 3, 1994

The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is whether in performing discretionary functions, they have engaged in conduct that violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … The threshold question regarding a defense of qualified immunity is whether defendants have violated a “clearly established” right. Pritchett, 973 F.2d at 313 .

Showalter v. North Carolina Department of Crime Control & Public Safety

183 N.C. App. 132 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 1, 2007

Defendants argue the trial court erred in concluding that Trooper Emmons was not entitled to qualified immunity because the right which plaintiff alleges to have been violated was not clearly established at the time and because … The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Hawkins v. State

117 N.C. App. 615 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 1995

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the right violated was clearly established. Clark v. Link, 855 F.2d 156, 160 (4th Cir. 1988). … Accordingly, defendants did not violate any clearly established due process rights in terminating plaintiff and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiff’s Fourteenth-Amendment due process claim. C.

Davis v. Town of Southern Pines

116 N.C. App. 663 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 1, 1994

“The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section 1983] is whether [the officers’ conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Farrell Ex Rel. Farrell v. Transylvania County Bd. of Educ.

199 N.C. App. 173 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 18, 2009

As this Court stated, “ ‘[qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing official, discretionary functions if the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Because Wohler’s alleged conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right to bodily integrity, of which defendant would have known, she is not entitled to the benefits of federal qualified immunity.

Rogerson v. Fitzpatrick

170 N.C. App. 387 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 2005

Forsyth, for support of the proposition that when a court looks at qualified immunity, "[a]ll it need determine is a question of law." … Likewise, this Court has concluded that when ruling on the defense of qualified immunity, we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established

Campbell v. Anderson

156 N.C. App. 371 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 4, 2003

of qualified immunity requires (1) identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determining whether at the time of the alleged violation the right was clearly established; and (3) if so, then determining … Plaintiff sufficiently identified specific rights clearly established at the time of the violation and has met the first two prongs. The third prong of the test may require a factual analysis. See Roberts v.

Andrews v. Crump

144 N.C. App. 68 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 5, 2001

They may, however, raise the defense of qualified immunity to section 1983 claims. Id. … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Vest v. Easley

145 N.C. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 17, 2001

They may, however, defend by raising the defense of qualified immunity. Id. … Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing official, discretionary functions if the conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Rousselo v. Starling

128 N.C. App. 439 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 3, 1998

We agree and conclude that under the doctrine of qualified immunity Trooper Starling was immune from suit because a reasonable person in his position would not have known that his actions violated a clearly established right … Police officers sued under section 1983 are not protected by qualified immunity if the officers’ conduct violated “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ”

Huber v. North Carolina State University

163 N.C. App. 638 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 20, 2004

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials per *645 forming discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … We must therefore determine whether Plaintiff’s right to privacy was clearly established at the time.

Toomer v. Garrett

155 N.C. App. 462 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 31, 2002

The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability under § 1983 “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … The qualified immunity inquiry requires a determination of whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time it was allegedly violated. See Andrews, supra.

Jensen v. Jessamy

242 N.C. App. 384 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 21, 2015

"The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability under § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … "In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Painter v. City of MT

823 S.E.2d 583 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 5, 2019

"Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct." … In the absence of such a clearly established right, the officer-defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from a 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy claim because they were employed by the same department. Id.

Farrell Ex Rel. Farrell v. Transylvania County Board of Education

175 N.C. App. 689 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 2006

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing official, discretionary functions if the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Assuming arguendo that plaintiffs properly pled its claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , plaintiffs’ allegations, nonetheless, fail to establish any conduct by Haehnel that violated clearly established statutory

Barnett v. Karpinos

119 N.C. App. 719 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 15, 1995

In reviewing this argument, we apply the following standard: “The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section 1983] is whether [the officers’ conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional … In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)