Case law

Happel v. Guilford Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 17, 2026

Opinion of the Court required to “conclusively establish” any factual issue in the case. … Our Supreme Court has clearly stated that the federal PREP Act provides immunity to both entities and individuals against “any type of tortious injury: physical injury, property damage, loss of use, and so on.”

Cowell v. Gaston County

190 N.C. App. 743 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 3, 2008

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 waiver of immunity.

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.

Happel v. Guilford Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 5, 2024

The PREP Act further defines the terms “manufacturer,” “distributor,” “program planner,” and “qualified person” as described below. ... … The declaration clearly provides that a program planner may be a private sector employer or community group when it carries out the “described activities” including administration of a covered countermeasure.

Butterfield v. Gray

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 5, 2021

“[I]t is well- established that the denial of a motion for summary judgment grounded on governmental immunity affects a substantial right and is immediately appealable[.]” Lucas v. Swain Cnty. … ¶ 18 This Court held that the physicians did not qualify as public officials and accordingly were not entitled to immunity from suit in their individual capacities. Id.

Hutton v. Logan

152 N.C. App. 94 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 6, 2002

Good Samaritan statutes often require the person providing the emergency care to do so “in good faith” and without expecting payment for the assistance in order to qualify for the statutory immunity. … We disagree. “ ‘[A] directed verdict for defendant on the basis of contributory negligence [is] proper only if the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff [establishes plaintiff’s] [] negligence so clearly

Northwestern Financial Group, Inc. v. County of Gaston

110 N.C. App. 531 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 15, 1993

However, we need not address this part of defendants’ appeal because the issues of qualified immunity and absolute immunity are not properly before this Court. … In their brief, defendants expressly abandoned their qualified immunity defense, choosing to rely exclusively on absolute immunity.

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. … Ed. 2d 411, 426 (1985) (Public officials are immune unless “the law clearly proscribed the actions [they] took.”).

Ripellino v. SCHOOL BOARD ASS'N, INC.

581 S.E.2d 88 · 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."

Hallman v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

124 N.C. App. 435 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 5, 1996

authorized to execute insurance contracts in this State or by a qualified insurer as determined by the Department of Insurance . . . .” … Defendant Board has established the complete defense of governmental immunity.

Butterfield v. Gray

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 5, 2021

“[I]t is well- established that the denial of a motion for summary judgment grounded on governmental immunity affects a substantial right and is immediately appealable[.]” Lucas v. Swain Cnty. … ¶ 18 This Court held that the physicians did not qualify as public officials and accordingly were not entitled to immunity from suit in their individual capacities. Id.

Hines v. Yates

171 N.C. App. 150 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 5, 2005

Defendants answered and asserted *155 defenses of sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and that plaintiff was an “at will employee.” Defendants moved for summary judgment. … Hurley argues public official immunity and qualified immunity bar this claim. “Governmental immunity protects the governmental entity and its officers or employees sued in their ‘official capacity.’ ” Taylor v.

Brown v. North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources

212 N.C. App. 337 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 7, 2011

its immunity from suit.” … The decision “whether an employee is exempt under the Act is primarily a question of fact which must be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard....” Blackmon v.

The Royal Oak Concerned Citizens Ass'n v. Brunswick Cnty.

233 N.C. App. 145 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 1, 2014

Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 208, 240 S.E.2d 338, 343 (1978). … “The burden is on the appellant to establish that a substantial right will be affected unless he is allowed immediate appeal from an interlocutory order.” Embler v. Embler, 143 N.C.

Caudill v. Dellinger

129 N.C. App. 649 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 16, 1998

Dellinger pleaded sovereign immunity as an absolute bar to plaintiffs claim, and argues he is entitled to absolute immunity regardless of his intent in discharging plaintiff. … Although Dellinger now argues the defense of qualified immunity, he does not assert that defense in his pleadings and it is not before us. V.

Truesdale v. University of North Carolina

91 N.C. App. 186 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 6, 1988

Even then, however, the officials may assert the defense of qualified immunity. Wood v. … To raise the defense, which does not apply to injunc-tive relief, the challenged conduct must not have violated a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v.

Luhmann v. Hoenig

161 N.C. App. 452 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 2, 2003

Here, defendants’ answer asserted as the fourth defense “sovereign, governmental, and qualified immunity.” Defendants asserted the immunity found in N.C. Gen. … Defendants’ evidence shows their entitlement to the limited immunity established in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-82-5 . Plaintiff argues that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-82-5 does not apply and contends that N.C. Gen.

Dempsey v. Halford

183 N.C. App. 637 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 5, 2007

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting the grounds of public official immunity, qualified privilege and statutory privilege. By order dated 17 July 2006, the trial court denied defendants’ motion. … On appeal, defendants argue that plaintiff failed to establish actual malice as to either defendant, therefore entitling both to summary judgment on the basis of public official immunity.

Peverall v. County of Alamance

154 N.C. App. 426 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 3, 2002

It is well established that sovereign immunity does not protect the state or its counties against claims brought against them directly under the North Carolina Constitution. … Although neither Simpson nor Bailey directly addressed the question of sovereign immunity, the doctrine clearly did not shield the State from suit in those cases.

Jones v. New Hanover Memorial Hospital

55 N.C. App. 545 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 2, 1982

In an exhaustively detailed analysis showing which states accorded charitable hospitals full immunity, qualified immunity, or no immunity, the Rabón Court characterized North Carolina as one of the “[¿Jurisdictions in which … immunity is qualified.” 269 N.C. at 17-18 , 152 S.E. 2d at 46 .