Case law

Houpe v. City of Statesville

128 N.C. App. 334 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 20, 1998

Seeking to establish his status as a non-probationary employee, plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action 18 February 1994 in Iredell County Superior Court. … Municipalities enjoy no immunity from suit, either absolute or qualified, under § 1983. Hawkins v. State of North Carolina, 117 N.C. App. 615, 625 , 453 S.E.2d 233, 238-39 (1995).

Bullard v. Wake County

221 N.C. App. 522 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 17, 2012

Turning to the merits of that affirmative defense, it is well established that the mere purchase of insurance standing alone does not waive a county’s sovereign immunity. … The defense of sovereign immunity *528 clearly applies to bar plaintiff's claims.” Id. at 597 , 655 S.E.2d at 924 .

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.

Owen v. Haywood County

205 N.C. App. 456 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 20, 2010

“However, when the motion is made on the grounds of sovereign and qualified immunity, such a denial is immediately appealable, because to force a defendant to proceed with a trial from which he should be immune would vitiate … The insurance policy at issue contained the following exclusion: “this policy provides coverage only for occurrences or wrongful acts for which the defense of governmental immunity is clearly not applicable or for which,

Brown v. NC DEPT. OF ENVIRONMENT

714 S.E.2d 154 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 7, 2011

waived 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.

Gregory v. Kilbride

150 N.C. App. 601 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 18, 2002

Kilbride moved to dismiss the action on the grounds of qualified immunity; the trial court denied that motion as well as Dr. … Kilbride moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment. Dr.

Atlantic Coast Conference v. University of Maryland

230 N.C. App. 429 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 19, 2013

Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 208 , 240 S.E.2d 338, 343 (1978). … App. 378, 380 , 451 S.E.2d 309, 311 (1994) for the proposition that “when [a] motion is made on the grounds of sovereign and qualified immunity, ... a denial is immediately appeal-able, because to force a defendant to proceed

Clayton v. Branson

170 N.C. App. 438 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 7, 2005

Thus, “unlike various government officials, municipalities do not enjoy immunity from suit — either absolute or qualified — under § 1983. … We conclude that each of these factors, standing alone or considered collectively, clearly bear a rational relationship to legitimate governmental goals.

Patrick v. Wake County Department of Human Services

188 N.C. App. 592 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 5, 2008

Here, defendants’ insurance policy unambiguously states, “this policy provides coverage only for occurrences or wrongful acts for which the defense of governmental immunity is clearly not applicable . ...” … The defense of sovereign immunity clearly applies to bar plaintiff’s claims. The trial court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. This assignment of error is overruled. D.

Klassette Ex Rel. Klassette v. Mecklenburg County Area Mental Health, Mental Retardation & Substance Abuse Authority

88 N.C. App. 495 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 2, 1988

of its governmental immunity. … The Center was established pursuant to the general provisions of N.C.G.S. Sec. 122C et seq. (1986).

Copper Ex Rel. Copper v. Denlinger

193 N.C. App. 249 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 21, 2008

This Court has set out the following test for qualified immunity: In order to establish the existence of an official’s right to the defense of qualified immunity, one must (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated … of the complaint to determine whether qualified immunity is established.”

State v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

193 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 7, 2008

Sovereign immunity is a common law doctrine that prohibits a lawsuit against the State of North Carolina “unless it consents to be sued or upon its waiver of immunity.” Guthrie v. N.C. … In short, the plain language of the MSA establishes that the issue of the application of the NPM adjustment for 2003, including the question of diligent enforcement, must be arbitrated.

Hill v. StubHub, Inc.

219 N.C. App. 227 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 6, 2012

“The language of § 230 sets forth three criteria to qualify for the immunity provided. First, immunity is available only to a ‘provider or user of an interactive computer service.’ 47 U.S.C.A. § 230 (c)(1). … Given that the record clearly establishes that Defendant operates an “interactive computer service” and that Plaintiffs claim is predicated on the theory that Defendant should be held responsible for content, in the form

White v. Trew

217 N.C. App. 574 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 20, 2011

Sovereign immunity would then apply and the suit would be barred. … A manager dictated a libelous letter to a stenographer who then sent it to the plaintiff, and the court held that the stenographer did not qualify as a third person for purposes of publication because “[t]he manager could

Dobrowolska Ex Rel. Dobrowolska v. Wall

138 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 16, 2000

“The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of clearly establishing the lack of any triable issue of material fact by the record properly before the court.” Johnson v. … In making this determination, it is necessary to assess whether the right allegedly implicated was clearly established at the time of the events in question. County of Sacramento v.

Hammond v. Saini

229 N.C. App. 359 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 3, 2013

However, where a party asserts a privilege or immunity that directly relates to the matter to be disclosed pursuant to the interlocutory discovery order and the assertion of the privilege or immunity is not frivolous or insubstantial … If so, plaintiff contends, the notes would not qualify for work product immunity under Rule 26(b)(3) because they would have been prepared pursuant to hospital policy as a matter of course following incidents of this nature

Boryla-Lett v. Psychiatric Solutions of North Carolina, Inc.

200 N.C. App. 529 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 3, 2009

The party moving for summary judgment ultimately has the burden of establishing the lack of any triable issue of fact. … Qualified immunity, if applicable, is sufficient to grant a defendant’s motion for summary judgment. See Bio-Medical Application of North Carolina, Inc. v. N.C. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 179 N.C.

Meinck v. City of Gastonia

263 N.C. App. 414 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 2, 2019

(Emphasis supplied) The City contends the quoted endorsement “clearly and unambiguously retains Gastonia’s governmental immunity.” … This hypothetical clause clearly excludes coverage in two separate circumstances: first, where the purchase of liability coverage otherwise would waive sovereign immunity or governmental immunity, which are long-standing

Robinson v. Nash County

43 N.C. App. 33 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 18, 1979

It is well established in this State that counties or municipal corporations have no governmental immunity for activities that are “proprietary” in nature. Bowling v. … In the present case the record establishes that the allegedly negligent acts attributed to the defendant Doughtie were clearly “of a public nature,” Hipp v. Ferrall, supra, imposed by statute, see N.C.

Locus v. Fayetteville State University

102 N.C. App. 522 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 16, 1991

The defendants filed an answer to her complaint asserting various defenses, including lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, sovereign immunity, qualified immunity and … However, Raintree is clearly distinguishable from the case at hand in that the plaintiff there was found to have waived his objection to the 10-day notice requirement under Rule 56 by fully participating in the hearing and