Case law

Lumsden Ex Rel. Estate of Lumsden v. United States

555 F. Supp. 2d 580 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 7, 2008

In Reply, [DE-21], the Government again presses its entitlement to immunity by operation of the “public duty” doctrine. … Saad, 73 N.C.App. 336 , 326 S.E.2d 365, 367 (1985) (recognizing cause of action against psychiatrist for injuries to third party resulting from wrongful release of mental patient; doctor’s statutory qualified immunity did

North Carolina Ex Rel. Long v. Alexander & Alexander Services, Inc.

711 F. Supp. 257 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 12, 1989

The Alexander Parties respond that “[a]s a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alexander & Alexander, Inc. ..., a named party to this suit, A & A of Washington’s claim can clearly be maintained by its parent.” … The Alexander Parties have established no such basis here. In the only case they cite where a corporation was permitted to *265 sue on behalf of its subsidiaries, Edward Hines Lumber Co. v.

Collins v. Franklin County

861 F. Supp. 2d 670 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 4, 2012

Sovereign immunity is a defense established to protect a state and its officials and agents from suit, and a failure to allege waiver of sovereign immunity against a government entity for tort does not state a claim and should … Collins has failed to allege a waiver of sovereign immunity with regard to her tort claims.

Nieves v. McHugh

111 F. Supp. 3d 667 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 3, 2015

Rivera also argues that the APA’s waiver of sovereign immunity applies. PL’s Mem. [D.E. 21] 6. … Thus, Rivera’s claim falls within section 702’s waiver of sovereign immunity. 2.

Norton v. Columbus County Board of Elections

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 13, 2020

The CCBOE defendants are entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983 unless “(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at … The Supreme Court has reserved judgment on whether decisions of a federal court of appeals are a source of clearly established law for purposes of qualified immunity. See id.; Kisela, 138 S.

United States v. State of North Carolina

400 F. Supp. 343 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 27, 1975

The consequences are ameliorated by the establishment of an alternate way to achieve licensing. … Where that point is—whether at 950 or some other score—is not established by the record. 5.

Wilson v. Thomas

43 F. Supp. 3d 628 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 20, 2014

Defendants argue that the individual plaintiffs have not established standing because they have not established the existence of a redressable injury. … This is clearly relief that does not require the participation of any individuals.

Teasley v. O'Neal

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 23, 2023

In assessing qualified immunity, courts employ a two-part test that “asks first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.” Melgar v. … Plaintiff's amended complaint does not allege a clearly established right which defendants violated.

Weinraub v. United States

927 F. Supp. 2d 258 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 13, 2012

See 49 U.S.C. § 44901 (requiring the screening of all passengers and property); § 44902 (requiring passengers to consent to a search to establish whether a passenger is carrying, or the property of a passenger contains, a … Plaintiff also contends that the court in Welch was “clearly wrong” in excluding screeners from the scope of the law enforcement proviso because screeners do not both perform searches and have the authority to arrest, Pi’

Blackmon v. Holder

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 11, 2024

Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … The court concludes that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

Everette v. Runyon

911 F. Supp. 180 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 3, 1995

“For plaintiff to prevail on a discrimination claim, [he] must first establish a four-part prima facie case: (1) that [he] is a member of a protected class; (2) that [he] was qualified for [his] job and [his] job performance … Although plaintiff suffers from a history of ocular disorders, the record clearly indicates that plaintiffs vision is 20/20 in both eyes, with correction in the right eye.

ALLEN v. CARY'S POLICE DEPARTMENT

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 18, 2021

Furthermore, qualified immunity protects police officers investigating criminal wrongdoing from liability for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Therefore, qualified immunity protects defendant from plaintiff's claims.

Jawa v. Fayetteville State University

426 F. Supp. 218 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 21, 1976

Hargrave that he was well qualified to write grant proposals. Dr. Hargrave then asked plaintiff if he would chair a committee to write a grant proposal for the Department. … These incidents clearly reflect unprofessional conduct and a continuing pattern of noncooperation on the part of plaintiff. On September 21, 1973, Dr.

Etheridge v. United States

218 F. Supp. 809 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 1, 1963

As has been noted, the language of the deed must clearly manifest the intention of the parties to convey otherwise. … But these rights are granted only when the defendant is in the process of establishing a lifesaving station on the conveyed property. This is clearly expressed.

Fogg v. U.S.A. Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 24, 2023

As for count three, the officer defendants move to dismiss the complaint based on qualified immunity. … In analyzing qualified immunity, the court asks “whether the facts that a plaintiff has shown . .. make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and “whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of

Smith v. Hill

285 F. Supp. 556 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 11, 1968

Dunn, North Carolina Vagrancy Ordinance, Chapter H, Article I, Section 2, is vague and overly broad, restrains freedom of movement, subjects persons to arrest and detention on suspicion, in effect requires a suspect to establish … support are deemed sufficient to satisfy the current unexpressed, unexpressable official standards for mandatory affluence. 11 A man’s mere property status, without more, cannot be used by a State [or a municipality] to test, qualify

Oxendine v. Hunt

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 16, 2024

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for statutory or constitutional violations so long as they can reasonably believe that their conduct does not violate clearly established law. Harlow v. … A court employs a two-step procedure for determining whether qualified immunity applies that “asks first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.”

Sahoo v. Gleaton

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 1, 2019

Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … And as to qualified immunity, the law was clearly established that “the integrity of one’s family is of the greatest importance” and “a parent is entitled to a hearing initiated by the State before he may be deprived of

Nursing Registry, Inc. v. Eastern North Carolina Regional Emergency Medical Services Consortium, Inc.

959 F. Supp. 298 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 7, 1997

County defendants claim absolute immunity under what is known as the state action doctrine. … allows, as the County defendants argue, “wide latitude to regulate, establish, operate, or contract with ambulance services.”

S.Y. v. Sampson County Board of Education

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Oct 31, 2024

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In analyzing qualified immunity, the court asks (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right at issue was clearly established at