Case law

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.

Wilmington Shipyard, Inc. v. North Carolina State Highway Commission

6 N.C. App. 649 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 17, 1969

in cases where the strictest possible construction was not required to reach the result, is not so clearly and definitely the rule in North Carolina as to compel this Court to take the strictest possible view of G.S. 136 … There is little question that a contract for the establishment of a ferry — which the Commission may undertake by G.S. 136-82 — would be equivalent to the “construction of a highway.” Repair or reconditioning, i.e.

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.

Ragan v. County of Alamance

98 N.C. App. 636 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1990

Such a result is clearly not correct. … Stat. § 168A-7 (1987) states that it is discriminatory for a department of State “to refuse to provide reasonable aids and adaptations necessary for a known qualified handicapped person to use or benefit from existing public

Pulliam v. City of Greensboro

103 N.C. App. 748 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 20, 1991

(a) A city may establish and revise from time to time schedules of rents, rates, fees, charges, and penalties for the use of or the services furnished by any public enterprise. … Additionally, our courts have clearly stated that in setting rates for public enterprise services, municipalities act in a proprietary role. See Aviation, Inc. v.

State v. Bowes

159 N.C. App. 18 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 15, 2003

However, when Hamilton entered DOC’s custody, DOC determined that Hamilton did not qualify for CYO status under our General Statutes and refused to consider her for immediate parole. … Addressing the issue of the propriety of DOC’s actions, this court held that: It is well established that a judgment of a Superior Court must be honored unless the judgment is void.

McCormick v. Hanson Aggregates Southeast, Inc.

164 N.C. App. 459 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 1, 2004

However, we find the following California Supreme Court holding instructive: Permitting a public agency to circumvent the established special statutory procedure by filing an ordinary declaratory relief action against a person … The North Carolina Public Records Act clearly gives the public a right to access records compiled by government agencies. See News and Observer Publ’g Co. v.

Cedarbrook Residential Ctr.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 21, 2021

The plurality opinion’s conclusion will lead to a stampede of nonjusticiable suits against regulatory state agencies which are clearly barred by sovereign immunity except for the limited waiver of that immunity … ¶ 51 The party asserting a claim must establish cause.

Farmer v. Troy Univ.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 2, 2021

¶ 36 Our Supreme Court’s decision in Smith is clearly distinguishable from Hyatt III and the case before us. … ¶ 46 It is well established that a plaintiff may not proceed with a claim directly  FARMER V.

State v. Morgan

60 N.C. App. 614 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 15, 1983

The separate provisions of Article 61 establish a pretrial and trial procedure designed to provide full and adequate prior disclosure of the prosecution’s arrangement with its witness to the Attorney General and trial court … The use immunity granted to Harry Shelton is clearly among the “arrangements” with a witness within the scope of G.S. 15A-1054.

Welch Contracting, Inc. v. North Carolina Department of Transportation

175 N.C. App. 45 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 20, 2005

Here, clearly, defendants had sufficient notice of the basis upon which our Court might rule. Plaintiff made only one assignment of error, and that assignment of error referenced the order of the trial court. … in this State: It is an established principle of jurisprudence, resting on grounds of sound public policy, that a state may not be sued in its own courts or elsewhere unless it has consented by statute to be sued or has

Smith v. Scotland Cnty.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 16, 2025

for . . . governmental immunity[ … “Under the doctrine of governmental immunity, a county is immune from suit for the negligence of its employees in the exercise of governmental functions absent a waiver of immunity.” Evans v. Hous.

Delconte v. State

65 N.C. App. 262 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 6, 1983

All schools described by subsections (1), (2), and (3) would be established educational institutions. Subsection (4) is a general term following a list of specific terms. … Therefore, we hold that G.S. 115C-555(4) refers only to established educational institutions.

Long v. Fowler

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 3, 2020

of immunity. … See Mullis, 347 N.C. at 552, 495 S.E.2d at 724 (“[P]leadings should . . . clearly state[] the capacity in which [defendants are] being sued.”).

Parker v. Town of Erwin

243 N.C. App. 84 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 15, 2015

and public official immunity.” … Public official immunity does not apply where “conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person in their position would be aware

Huyck Corp. v. C. C. Mangum, Inc.

58 N.C. App. 532 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 3, 1982

Thus, the State and DOT argue that the Tort Claims Act, G.S. 143-291, et seq., is the only substantive law waiving the State’s sovereign immunity. … State, 289 N.C. 303 , 222 S.E. 2d 412 (1976), clearly establishes that the State and its agencies may be sued in contract.

Carver v. Carver

55 N.C. App. 716 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 16, 1982

‘The child’s immunity is said to be reciprocal • of the parent’s immunity.’ ” Gillikin v. Burbage, 263 N.C. 317 , 139 S.E. 2d 753 (1965). … (c) All evidence which reasonably tends to establish any of the elements of damages included in subsection (b), or otherwise reasonably tends to establish the present monetary value of the decedent to the persons entitled

State v. Miller

61 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 1, 1983

for something and the State not be able to show what that immunity was.” … a jury trial the judge must inform the jury of the grant of immunity and the order to testify prior to the testimony of the witness under the grant of immunity.

Webb v. Price

210 N.C. App. 261 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 1, 2011

established statutory method of subjecting such persons to the jurisdiction of the Court.” … Defendant cites no authority, and we find none, establishing that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162-16 replaces the requirements of N.C. Gen.

Faulkenbury v. TEACHERS'AND STATE EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT SYSTEM

108 N.C. App. 357 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 5, 1993

. § 1983 cause of action on essentially three bases: (A) the doctrines of qualified and official immunity shield the defendants from suit brought under the theories of section 1983 and any state law claims; (B) defendants … However, plaintiffs' complaint also quite clearly requests damages. Plaintiffs' complaint states, "This is a Complaint for damages and other relief, including 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ."