Case law

Staley v. Lingerfelt

134 N.C. App. 294 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 20, 1999

App. at 725-26 , 460 S.E.2d at 211 : ‘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 … 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)

Moore v. Evans

124 N.C. App. 35 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 15, 1996

Generally, qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing discretionary functions to the extent that such conduct “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In order to establish the existence of an official’s right to the defense of qualified immunity, one must (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether that right was clearly established; and (

Boyd v. Robeson County

169 N.C. App. 460 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 5, 2005

Qualified Immunity The detention officers next argue that summary judgment should have been granted on the § 1983 claims based on qualified immunity. 4 *479 The United States Supreme Court has held that “[t]he threshold inquiry … a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.”

Glenn-Robinson v. Acker

140 N.C. App. 606 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 5, 2000

“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)

Parker v. Hyatt

196 N.C. App. 489 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 21, 2009

Clearly, the legislature intended § 113-136(1) to pertain to all portions of § 113-136 in order to establish constitutional parameters to the authority given to protectors and inspectors. … Based on our determination, we need not address defendant’s argument regarding good faith qualified immunity.

Blevins v. Denny

114 N.C. App. 766 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 1994

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 … In Mitchell , the United States Supreme Court went on to explain that entitlement [to qualified immunity] is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively

Golden Rule Insurance v. Long

113 N.C. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 23, 1993

In order to defeat the qualified immunity, plaintiff had to show that defendant violated some clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … This standard determines if further proceedings are barred by qualified immunity by examining the law in existence at the time of the offense to determine if it contained “clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable

State Ex Rel. Jacobs v. Sherard

36 N.C. App. 60 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 18, 1978

Contending that prosecutorial immunity may be only “qualified,” or malice-destroyed, defendant relies on the following language in State v. … Swanson’s grant of only qualified immunity to public officers does not affect the general grant of absolute immunity to district attorneys.

Fowler v. Valencourt

108 N.C. App. 106 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 1, 1992

We will first address the issue of qualified immunity. … , in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.’

Davis v. Durham City Schools

91 N.C. App. 520 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 4, 1988

The affidavit of the police officer who investigated the matter, however, clearly establishes that the decision to prosecute was made solely by the officer based upon the results of his investigation, and the principal was … of the immunity contemplated by the statute.

Morrison-Tiffin v. Hampton

117 N.C. App. 494 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 3, 1995

The individual defendants have asserted the defense of qualified immunity. A. Equal Protection 1. … The test for qualified immunity was set forth in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 73 L.

Lenzer v. Flaherty

106 N.C. App. 496 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 1992

immunity because their conduct was not clearly unlawful under existing precedent. … In general, qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability for performing discretionary functions to the extent that such conduct does not violate “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional

Lucas v. Swain County Board of Education

154 N.C. App. 357 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 3, 2002

Both affidavits established the Trust is not authorized and licensed to execute insurance contracts in this State and that it is not considered a qualified insurer as determined by the Department of Insurance. … Moreover, defendant established through three affidavits from Hale, Earley and Dunlap that the Trust is neither a licensed and authorized insurer, nor a qualified insurer as determined by the Department.

Ellis v. White

156 N.C. App. 16 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 4, 2003

“Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, ‘governmental officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … “Therefore, ruling on a defense 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

In re Cline

230 N.C. App. 11 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 1, 2013

“Generally, qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing discretionary functions to the extent that such conduct “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Cline possess a qualified immunity to make those untruthful statements with reckless disregard for the truth.”

Estate of Williams v. Pasquotank County Parks & Recreation Department

211 N.C. App. 627 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 3, 2011

However, when the motion is made on the grounds of sovereign and qualified immunity, such a denial is immediately appealable, because to force a defendant to proceed with a trial from which he should be immune would vitiate … What qualifies as a governmental function and what qualifies as a proprietary function is not always clear; our Supreme Court noted in Sides v.

State Ex Rel. Cooper v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Co.

197 N.C. App. 176 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 19, 2009

(Wachovia), under which Defendants appointed Wachovia to serve as Escrow Agent of the “Qualified Escrow Fund” that Defendants were required to establish under the Act. … As a result, the record clearly establishes that the trial court considered, apparently without objection, materials outside the pleadings in deciding Defendants’ dismissal motion. 2 .

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

194 N.C. App. 159 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 2, 2008

Defendant alleged she was entitled to public official immunity on the State claims and qualified immunity on the federal claim. … 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

Richmond County Board of Education v. Cowell

225 N.C. App. 583 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 19, 2013

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 .... … Our Supreme Court emphasized that Corum “clearly established] the principle that sovereign immunity could not operate to bar direct constitutional claims.” Id. at 340, 678 S.E.2d at 356 .

Phillips v. Gray

163 N.C. App. 52 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 17, 2004

The Fund clearly defines county sheriffs and chief deputies as “Law Enforcement Employees.” … To establish a cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of free speech, plaintiff must forecast sufficient evidence “that the speech complained of qualified as protected speech or activity” and “that such protected