Case law

Nello L. Teer Co. v. North Carolina Department of Transportation

175 N.C. App. 705 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 2006

As our Supreme Court has explained, “[ordinary statutes of limitation are clearly procedural, affecting only the remedy directly and not the right to recover,” while “a condition precedent establishes a time period in which … Any other conclusion would mean that this aspect of the 1987 amendment was without purpose, and it is well established in this State that amendments are presumed not to be without purpose. Town of Pine Knoll Shores v.

Sed Holdings, LLC v. 3 Star Props., LLC

250 N.C. App. 215 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 1, 2016

Qualified - 10 -  SED HOLDINGS, LLC V. 3 STAR PROPERTIES, LLC Opinion of the Court Pers., Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 208, 240 S.E … In RPR Assocs., the defendant appealed from an interlocutory order denying its motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. 153 N.C. App. at 344, 570 S.E.2d at 512.

Blanton v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, Inc.

78 N.C. App. 502 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 17, 1985

The Bost opinion clearly stated, however, that the doctrine of corporate negligence had been implicitly accepted and applied in a number of previous decisions. … We further hold that plaintiffs complaint sufficiently establishes a cause of action for which relief can be granted under the doctrine of corporate negligence.

Boyce & Isley, PLLC v. Cooper

195 N.C. App. 625 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 17, 2009

Ramseur’s notes should not be disclosed to plaintiffs because they are protected under the qualified immunity for attorney work product (N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 26(b)(3) (2007)) implicates a substantial right. … Although not a privilege, the exception is a “qualified immunity” and extends to all materials prepared “in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party’s consultant, surety

Stone v. North Carolina Department of Labor

125 N.C. App. 288 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 4, 1997

P. 12(b)(1) and (2) on the basis of sovereign immunity. Deputy Commissioner D. Bernard Alston denied defendants’ motions. The full Commission affirmed and adopted the Deputy Commissioner’s decision. … This statute clearly imposes specific duties upon the Commissioner of Labor to enforce inspection laws, to inspect the workplaces of North Carolina and to prosecute violations.

State v. Branham

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 1, 2025

On 23 February 2024, the trial court denied Defendant’s motion for its “fail[ing] to satisfy the statutory requirements to qualify for immunity from prosecution under [N.C.]G.S. § 90-96.2.” … App. 323, 327 (2020) (distinguishing § 90-96.2’s grant of prosecutorial immunity from our common law’s recognition of jurisdictional immunity).4 In State v.

Howard v. County of Durham

227 N.C. App. 46 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 7, 2013

Standard of Review With respect to a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity, the question is whether the complaint specifically alleges a waiver of governmental immunity. … Had the mediated settlement conference taken place in our state’s superior court, there would clearly be no enforceable agreement because mediated settlement agreements must be in writing under N.C. Gen.

Companies v. North Carolina Department of Transportation

161 N.C. App. 156 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 4, 2003

its immunity from suit. … We believe this statute clearly waives the Department’s sovereign immunity.

Stroud v. Harrison

131 N.C. App. 480 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 1, 1998

They also contend that the complaint is barred by the doctrines of sovereign immunity, judicial immunity, qualified immunity and the statute of limitations. … “When Congress has not established a time limitation for a federal cause of action, the settled practice has been to adopt a local time limitation as federal law if it is not inconsistent with federal law or policy to do

Flomeh-Mawutor v. City of Winston-Salem

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 6, 2024

Stat. § 160A-456 is “clearly relevant” to our analysis of the instant case. … It is well established that “a city can waive its immunity by purchasing liability insurance.” Reid v. Town of Madison, 137 N.C. App. 168, 170, 527 S.E.2d 87, 89 (2000); see also N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-485(a).

Cook v. Wake County Hospital System, Inc.

125 N.C. App. 618 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 18, 1997

Pursuant to the rules of discovery outlined by G.S. 1A-1, Rule 26(b)(3), documents prepared “in anticipation of litigation” are afforded a qualified immunity from discovery by the party seeking those documents. … immunity provided by this subdivision.”

Fulford v. Jenkins

195 N.C. App. 402 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 17, 2009

It is well established that contracts for insurance are to be interpreted under the same rules of law as are applicable to other written contracts. … immunity.

Herring Ex Rel. Marshall v. Liner

163 N.C. App. 534 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 6, 2004

party seeking summary judgment makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce a forecast of evidence demonstrating specific facts, as opposed to allegations, showing that he can at least establish … If no definition is given, non-technical words are to be given their meaning in ordinary speech, unless the context clearly indicates another meaning was intended.”

In Re the Appeal of Chapel Hill Day Care Center, Inc.

144 N.C. App. 649 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 17, 2001

Stat. § 105-278.4 sets out the requirements an establishment must meet to qualify for educational tax exempt status. … Moreover, the relevant statutory provisions are clearly distinguishable.

Ladd v. Funderburk

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 18, 2022

However, denial of a motion for summary judgment ‘on the grounds of sovereign and qualified immunity is immediately appealable.’ ” Epps v. Duke Univ., 122 N.C. … FUNDERBURK 2022-NCCOA-676 Opinion of the Court “three-step inquiry” established in Estate of Williams v.

Bowles Automotive, Inc. v. North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles

203 N.C. App. 19 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 16, 2010

In other words, claimants are those persons who can establish an ownership interest in the seized property. … It seems obvious that garage owners who are storing seized property for the seizing entity do not qualify as “claimants” under the statutory definition.

The News & Observer Publ'g Co. v. McCrory

251 N.C. App. 211 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 20, 2016

In light of our well-established precedent regarding interlocutory appeals, only Defendants’ sovereign immunity contentions could provide them a path to immediate appellate review. … [the] affirmative defense was clearly before the trial court. . . .

Bates v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Comm'n

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 2, 2024

LANDMARKS COMM’N Opinion of the Court taken as true, are sufficient to establish a waiver by the State of governmental immunity. Fullwood, 250 N.C. … In such cases, “[b]ecause malice encompasses intent, . . . if a party alleges an intentional tort claim, the doctrine of qualified immunity does not immunize public officials . . . from suit in their individual capacities

Wilson v. Wilson

203 N.C. App. 45 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 16, 2010

App. 649 , 379 S.E.2d 45 (1989), established the rule that a party’s “failure to timely perfect [an] appeal constitutes an abandonment of the appeal.” Woods, 93 N.C. App. at 652 , 379 S.E.2d at 47 . … “Qualified beneficiary” is defined at N.C. Gen. Stat. § 36C-1-103(15). Defendants do not argue on appeal that Plaintiffs are not qualified beneficiaries.

Sanders v. State Personnel Commission

197 N.C. App. 314 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 2, 2009

On 22 July 2005, defendants answered and moved to dismiss the action as barred by principles of sovereign and/or qualified immunity and for a failure to state a claim for relief. … Although the regulations clearly state that temporary employees shall not be employed greater than twelve months, they fail to provide *323 a remedy or to establish a classification for a “temporary” employee whose term then