Case law

Prior v. Pruett

143 N.C. App. 612 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 5, 2001

immunity. … “Only where the evidence establishes the plaintiff’s own negligence so clearly that no other reasonable conclusion may be reached is summary judgment to be granted.” Id.

Baker v. Smith

224 N.C. App. 423 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 18, 2012

Public Official Immunity The only question presented on appeal is whether defendant, an assistant jailer, qualifies as a public official entitled to immunity from suit in an individual capacity. 2 This question is one of … The parties agree that a chief jailer is clearly entitled to public official immunity. See Slade v. Vernon, 110 N.C.

Craig Ex Rel. Craig v. New Hanover County Board of Education

185 N.C. App. 651 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 4, 2007

Both parties agree, as do this Court’s prior holdings, that the purchase of insurance through NCSBT does not constitute waiver because NCSBT does not qualify as liability insurance under the definition given in N.C. … Clearly, the Court is using “adequate remedy” to mean “available, existing, applicable remedy.” Such a remedy is available here in the form of a common-law negligence claim. *657 III.

Pangburn v. Saad

73 N.C. App. 336 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 5, 1985

In both the Bellavance and Leverett cases, supra, the applicable statutes granted only a qualified immunity to the individual physicians. … Sec. 122-24 was intended to create a qualified immunity for those state employees it protects, extending only to their ordinary negligent acts.

Murray v. Justice

96 N.C. App. 169 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 7, 1989

Ed. 2d 396 (1982) to refute the defendant’s contention that his action should at least be afforded qualified immunity as a quasi-judicial function if he was not given absolute immunity. … The United States Supreme Court held that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Ripellino v. North Carolina School Boards Ass'n

158 N.C. App. 423 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 17, 2003

A waiver of sovereign immunity must be established by the General Assembly. Wood v. N.C. State Univ., 147 N.C. App. 336, 338 , 556 S.E.2d 38, 40 (2001). … “The concept of sovereign immunity is so firmly established that it should not and cannot be waived by indirection or by procedural rule. Any such change should be by plain, unmistakable mandate of the lawmaking body.”

McIver v. Smith

134 N.C. App. 583 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 17, 1999

Plaintiffs contend that the Forsyth County ambulance service is not shielded by governmental immunity because it qualifies as a proprietary function for four reasons. … However, we are of the opinion that the operation of government-operated ambulance services is clearly a government function that should have immunity.

Walker v. Wake Cty. Sheriff's Dep't

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 2, 2022

¶ 14 Sheriff Defendants have failed to establish that, based solely on the pleadings and as a matter of law, qualified privilege precludes liability for Curry’s email to Crump. … “[A] defendant seeking to establish public official immunity must demonstrate that all three of [these] factors are present.” McCullers v. Lewis, 265 N.C.

Schmidt v. Breeden

134 N.C. App. 248 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 20, 1999

Notwithstanding, our courts have established that denial of a summary judgment motion grounded upon governmental immunity affects a substantial right and is thereby immediately appealable pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 1-277(a) ( … Certain activities qualify as “clearly governmental such as law enforcement operations and the operation of jails, public libraries, county fire departments, public parks and city garbage services.” Hare, 99 N.C.

Kelly v. Polk Cnty.

257 N.C. App. 952 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 6, 2018

Thus, the public official immunity afforded to public officers is qualified. … Plaintiff's complaint thus lacks the facts sufficient to establish a good claim for depriving Deputy Kujawa of his public official immunity protections.

Boyd v. Robeson County

615 S.E.2d 296 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 15, 2005

Qualified Immunity The detention officers next argue that summary judgment should have been granted on the § 1983 claims based on qualified immunity. 4 The United States Supreme Court has held that "[t]he threshold inquiry … a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiff's allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation."

Shuping v. Barber

89 N.C. App. 242 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 15, 1988

If defendants successfully establish facts sufficient to show a qualified privilege, plaintiff would be required to show that the publication was made with actual malice in order to recover. See Stewart v. … If defendants successfully establish the affirmative defense of qualified privilege, plaintiff will be required, in order to recover, to show that the publication was made with actual malice.

May v. City of Durham

136 N.C. App. 578 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 15, 2000

defense, the plaintiff must present facts sufficient to overcome this qualified immunity. … A government official has qualified immunity in the performance of discretionary functions “to the extent that such conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Dickerson Carolina, Inc. v. Harrelson

114 N.C. App. 693 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 1994

Public officials cannot be liable for damages in a civil rights action based on federal law unless clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known have been violated. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2816 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411, 426 (1985) (Public officials are immune unless "the law clearly proscribed the actions [they] took.").

Baznik v. FCA US LLC

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 2, 2021

FCA US LLC 2021-NCCOA-583 Opinion of the Court of public official immunity and/or qualified immunity, as well as the doctrine of … Stat. § 143B-346 as statutes that clearly establish their positions within NCDOT as these statutes do not establish any position within NCDOT.  BAZNIK V.

Demurry v. North Carolina Department of Corrections

195 N.C. App. 485 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 3, 2009

, public official immunity, and qualified immunity. … Our appellate courts have determined that sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, governmental immunity, and public official’s immunity are affirmative defenses. See, e.g., Summey v.

Turner v. Special Agent Thomas

235 N.C. App. 520 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 5, 2014

"The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability under § 1983 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … "The qualified immunity inquiry requires a determination of whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time it was allegedly violated." Id. at 474, 574 S.E.2d at 87.

Braswell v. Medina

255 N.C. App. 217 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 5, 2017

Qualified Immunity We also reject the Officers’ assertion that dismissal of Braswell’s § 1983 claims was appropriate pursuant to the qualified immunity doctrine. … “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

Bigelow v. Town of Chapel Hill

227 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 7, 2013

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings should not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he *3 is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” … Defendants had placed Bigelow in the pool of applicants qualified for the driving position, and had interviewed him, but stated to the EEOC that they had hired the lesser-qualified Town because Bigelow was unqualified for

Hunter v. Transylvania County Department of Social Services

207 N.C. App. 735 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 2, 2010

Moody’s appeal is clearly from an interlocutory order. Generally, there is no right of immediate appeal from an interlocutory order. See Christmas v. Cabarrus Cty., 192 N.C. … to proceed to trial regardless of a valid immunity claim, the immunity would be effectively lost.