Case law

Area Mental Health, Mental Retardation & Substance Abuse Authority v. Speed

69 N.C. App. 247 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 3, 1984

Indeed, such a requirement would have the anomalous effect of rendering reduction-in-force decisions immune from claims of illegal discrimination and consequent judicial scrutiny. … Speed was qualified for her job, and that her discharge resulted from discriminatory motives.

ATLANTIC MICROFILM CORPORATION v. Turner

7 N.C. App. 258 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 25, 1970

Highway Commission, 230 N.C. 489 , 53 S.E. 2d 517 (1949), it is said: “That the sovereign may not be sued, either in its own courts or elsewhere, without its consent, is an established principle of jurisprudence in all civilized … Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 25 R.C.L. 412. * * * ‘The State is immune from suit unless and until it has expressly consented to be sued.

Epps v. Duke University, Inc.

116 N.C. App. 305 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 6, 1994

App. 98 , 303 S.E.2d 627 (1983), aff’d, 311 N.C. 727 , 319 S.E.2d 145 (1984), Judge Becton clearly stated that a ruling on the merits cannot be made on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See Wilkes v. … Furthermore, Judge Greene’s order constituted a ruling on the merits: His conclusion that Hjelmstad acted outside the scope of the duties of a medical examiner and that he is not entitled to immunity established Hjelmstad

Woods v. Moses Cone Health System

198 N.C. App. 120 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 2009

The duties of the Committee shall be to: (1) work in cooperation with the Service Chief or Section Chair to establish effective systems for monitoring and evaluating the care rendered by the Service or Section and identify … from discovery *128 under § 95 do not, however, lose their immunity because they were transmitted” to persons outside the medical review committee.

Lunsford v. Renn

207 N.C. App. 298 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 5, 2010

Watson’s 911 call when he began his pursuit, clearly Ayscue was driving in a menacing manner prior to his involvement. … Accordingly, subject to this policy and the Limits of Liability shown on the Declarations, this policy provides coverage only for occurrences or wrongful acts for which the defense of governmental immunity is clearly not

Moore v. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service

146 N.C. App. 89 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 4, 2001

It has long been the established law of *93 North Carolina that the State and its agencies cannot be sued except with consent or upon waiver of sovereign immunity. Whitfield v. … to perform, coupled with the fact that the position was to be directly supervised by the Onslow County CED, with further supervision from the NCCES District Extension Director and the NCCES Director of County Operations, clearly

Liner v. Brown

117 N.C. App. 44 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 15, 1994

This relationship is established only when the person with whom the child is placed intends to assume the status of a parent— by taking on the obligations incidental to the parental relationship, particularly that of support … Defendants, like foster parents, have a “unique responsibility clearly differing] from the supervisory functions of a natural parent.” Andrews v. County of Otsego, 446 N.Y.S.2d 169, 173 (1982).

Norton v. SMC Building, Inc.

156 N.C. App. 564 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 18, 2003

“Ambiguity in the terms of the policy is not established simply because the parties contend for differing meanings to be given to the language. … The *570 disputed exclusionary provision is not ambiguous and, when construed and enforced according to its plain meaning, it clearly encompasses the construction defects plaintiffs allege resulted from the County’s negligent

Sellers v. Rodriguez

149 N.C. App. 619 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 2, 2002

To afford these defendants the opportunity to prepare a proper defense, the complaint should have clearly stated the capacities in which these defendants were being sued. See Mullis v. … ; it is well-established that law enforcement constitutes a governmental function.

Foy v. Foy

69 N.C. App. 213 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 19, 1984

The evidence establishes beyond peradventure that defendant has at all times since April, 1977, rendered services to the company which were essential to its operation, and for which defendant could have demanded direct and … Nor does it grant defendant permanent immunity from enforcement of his contrac *217 tual and legal obligations. The assignment of error is without merit.

Williams v. Holsclaw

128 N.C. App. 205 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 6, 1998

Three well established canons of statutory construction coalesce to reveal the legislative intent behind section 20-279.21(b)(3). … The lack of insurance by the municipality qualifies the vehicle as an uninsured vehicle within the meaning of section 20-279.21(b)(3).

Battle Ridge Cos. v. Dept. of Transp.

587 S.E.2d 426 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 4, 2003

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

Jones v. City of Burlington

58 N.C. App. 193 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 6, 1982

The burden of proving governmental immunity rests with the party asserting such defense. … We have reviewed the findings of fact made by the trial court and find that they clearly support its conclusion that defendant was negligent and that plaintiff was injured as a result of that negligence: The court finds from

Marlowe v. Piner

119 N.C. App. 125 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 6, 1995

If the facts are admitted or established, it is a question of law for the court. Id. However, if the facts are in dispute, the question of probable cause is one of fact for the jury. Id. … Hefner, 235 N.C. 1, 7 , 68 S.E.2d 783, 787-88 (1952) (qualified immunity for public officer sued in individual capacity does not extend to mere employee of governmental entity).

Woodard v. NC LOCAL GOV. EMP. RETIREMENT SYSTEM

110 N.C. App. 83 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 4, 1993

immunity; (4) defendants were protected from suit for any state claims by reason of the doctrine of *851 official immunity; (5) plaintiff had not stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against certain defendants; and … (6) plaintiff's suit was barred pursuant to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Debruhl v. Mecklenburg Cnty. Sheriff's Office

259 N.C. App. 50 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 17, 2018

Man being what he is cannot safely be trusted with complete immunity from outward responsibility in depriving others of their rights. . . . … The State is not “immune from the historic requirements of fairness - 16 -  DEBRUHL V.

Young v. Woodall

119 N.C. App. 132 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 6, 1995

It is well established that law enforcement is a governmental function. Hare v. Butler, 99 N.C. App. 693, 698 , 394 S.E.2d 231, 235 , disc. review denied, 327 N.C. 634 , 399 S.E.2d 121 (1990). … Law enforcement is clearly a governmental function, Hare v. Butler, supra, and Officer Woodall was on duty as a police officer at the time of the collision.

Hughes v. Bd. of Trustees Teachers' & State Emps.' Ret. Sys.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 19, 2024

“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 immunity is absolute … While this section provides a statute of limitations for actions brought, it does not waive immunity, establish nor provide a cause of action for a pro-active, or an absolute contractual right to cost of living increases

Coleman v. Cooper

89 N.C. App. 188 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 15, 1988

The evidence clearly shows that plaintiffs intestates were merely potential witnesses who would likely be called by the State at the time of trial. … IV Wake County and Cooper have alleged sovereign immunity as a defense. Counties, like cities, may waive governmental immunity by purchasing liability insurance. G.S. 153A-435.

Edwards v. Akion

52 N.C. App. 688 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 1981

The moving party must clearly establish that there is no triable issue of fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Yount v. Lowe, 288 N.C. 90 , 215 S.E. 2d 563 (1975). … As a city is ordinarily immune from tort liability, when it voluntarily waives that immunity by purchasing liability insurance, it obviously does so to protect innocent victims.