Case law

Olavarria v. Jones

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 17, 2020

Clearly Established Law As stated above, “[q]ualified immunity protects officials ‘who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably … Medford, 119 F.3d 1156, 1159 (4th Cir. 1997) (“Qualified immunity may be raised in a motion to dismiss.”).

Spencer v. Rhodes

656 F. Supp. 458 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 19, 1987

Persons proceeding in forma pauperis are immune from imposition of costs if they are unsuccessful; and because of their poverty, they are practically immune from later tort actions for ‘malicious prosecution’ or abuse of … When a judge clearly abuses this discretion, then our appellate courts are bound to reverse that initial determination.

Southport Fisheries, Inc. v. Saskatchewan Government Ins.

161 F. Supp. 81 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 11, 1958

Clearly the plaintiff’s injury does not result from such a peril. … The weakness of plaintiff’s case in this respect is that the evidence does not establish the loss resulted from a peril insured against.

Hill v. Elizabeth City

291 F. 194 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 20, 1923

The court also held that, by virtue of the Constitution of Ohio, which provided that- “no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted that may not be altered, revoked or repealed by the General Assembly, * * * … Upon the face of the two ordinances there .was a plain conflict— the latter clearly impaired the obligation of the former.”

Hallmark Clinic v. North Carolina Department of Human Resources

380 F. Supp. 1153 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 30, 1974

For these and the other reasons so correctly and clearly stated by Judge Craven, I heartily concur in his decision on the merits of the case. … Edelman , however, is clearly distinguishable.

Marlo M. Ex Rel. Parris v. Cansler

679 F. Supp. 2d 635 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 17, 2010

Applying the standard in Winters, the court finds Plaintiffs have established they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. … Plaintiffs have also clearly demonstrated they will suffer irreparable harm.

Darden v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

717 F. Supp. 388 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 30, 1989

One delegate felt that any Deferred Compensation Incentive Credits should be fully and permanently vested in the writing agent’s name with no losses possible through either qualified or non-qualified cancellation of the Agent … That a vesting provision is not to be considered as a plan parameter is clearly indicated by the definition of “participant” in ERISA ...

Soto v. Town of Rolesville

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 9, 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

Montgomery v. Johnston County Department of Social Services

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 26, 2023

In remaining parts, where plaintiff alleges violations based upon investigations by individual defendants or actions following filing of removal petitions, plaintiff’s claims are barred on the basis of qualified immunity … App’x 147, 155 (4th Cir. 2019) (“[W]e have not yet articulated the constitutional standard that governs the removal of children from their parents’ custody, [and] that right was not clearly established at the time the DSS

North Carolina Socialist Workers Party v. North Carolina State Board of Elections

538 F. Supp. 864 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 4, 1982

The Party qualified for a position on the ballot in North Carolina in the 1980 general election. The individual plaintiffs are members of the Party. … As a prima facie matter, however, plaintiffs have clearly shown that the disaffiliation requirement has a substantially restrictive effect on their access to the ballot.

Morris v. Syneos Health, Inc.

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 27, 2024

In the context of an ADA case, a prima facie case is established if the plaintiff alleges that “(1) he is a disabled person within the meaning of the statute; (2) he is a qualified individual with a disability; and (3) … on behalf of the “naturally immune.”

Med-Trans Corp. v. Benton

581 F. Supp. 2d 721 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 26, 2008

When New York city sought to regulate, SeaAir argued that it was immune to local regulation because federal Jaw preempted such interference. Id. … The court further finds that defendants are not immune from declaratory and prospective injunctive relief.

Progress Solar Solutions, LLC v. Long

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Oct 8, 2019

If only a portion or portions of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins, but not over … If only a portion of the material on a page qualifies for protection, the Producing Party also must clearly identify the protected portion(s) (e.g., by making appropriate markings in the margins, but not over text).

United States v. MacDonald

485 F. Supp. 1087 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 14, 1979

Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 , 93 S.Ct. 1038 , 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973), is clearly distinguishable. … The principle must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field to which it belongs. United States v. Brown, 557 F.2d 541, 556 (6th Cir. 1977).

Cannon v. Durham County Board of Elections

959 F. Supp. 289 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 6, 1997

The court is persuaded that this rule is established law in North Carolina. See Holly Farm Foods, Inc. v. … Therefore, the question becomes whether a dismissal for mootness qualifies as a final judgment on the merits. Unfortunately, no North Carolina court has addressed this issue.

Standard Oil Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R.

6 F.2d 911 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 6, 1925

It is contended by the defendants that the essential facts of the commerce establish a shipment, in legal contemplation, or the movement of the shipment as a practical business proposition establishes a shipment, that is … It is important in the first place to have a proper understanding and decision in this ease, that we comprehend clearly the essential facts, and the proper statement of such facts makes obvious the question in controversy

Hoffler v. Hagel

122 F. Supp. 3d 438 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 10, 2015

Hoffler must establish jurisdiction. See, e.g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 93-94, 104 , 118 S.Ct. 1003 , 140 L.Ed.2d 210 (1998); Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. v. … The AFBCMR reasoned that the contention that Hoffler “would have beep promoted absent the LOR. is total speculation as only a duly appointed selection board can determine who is among the best qualified for promotion.”

Brown v. Greene

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 1, 2024

Drawing inferences in plaintiff’s favor, it is “clearly established” that plaintiff has “allege[d] facts to satisfy the elements of a cause of action created by th[e] statute.” … Therefore defendant Greene is not entitled to dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity. In sum, plaintiff has stated a claim for race discrimination under §§ 1981 and 1983 against defendant Greene.

Morrison v. Martin

755 F. Supp. 683 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 16, 1990

Examples of the former class are claims against which it is clear that the defendants are immune from suit ... and claims of infringement of a legal interest which clearly does not exist_ Examples of the latter class are … To the extent that a defendant does not transgress against a clearly established constitutional interest, he is protected. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396, 410 (1982).

Sharpe v. Best

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 17, 2024

Once a document qualifies as opinion work-product it is immune from discovery, except in “very rare and exceptional circumstances.” In re Allen, 106 F.3d 582, 607 (4th Cir. 1997). C. … The record clearly establishes that the Clinic was acting on Sharpe’s behalf in investigating his claim of actual innocence.