Case law

Ford v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

162 F.R.D. 108 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 9, 1995

The surveillance materials are, however, entitled to only a qualified immunity since no mental impressions, conclusions, or legal theories of the attorney are implicated. … The qualified immunity can be overcome by a showing of substantial need.

Singletary v. Department of Health & Human Services

848 F. Supp. 2d 588 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 1, 2012

Dixon in their individual capacities because both are entitled to qualified immunity, (5) to dismiss claims against Phillip R. Dixon in his individual capacity because Ms. … Dixon is entitled to absolute immunity, the Court does not address his affirmative defenses of qualified immunity or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. III.

Russ v. Causey

732 F. Supp. 2d 589 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 5, 2010

Qualified Immunity Government officials sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages under § 1983 so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Next, assuming that the violation of the right is established, courts must consider whether the right was clearly established at the time such that it would be clear to an objectively reasonable officer that his conduct violated

Cade v. County of Bladen

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 11, 2020

In proving different treatment of similarly situated employees in the disciplinary context, “[t]he similarity between comparators and the seriousness of their respective offenses must be clearly established in … Walls, 347 N.C. 97, 104 (1997) (“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.”).

Edmundson v. Keesler

904 F. Supp. 478 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 2, 1995

If a plaintiff has alleged a clearly established right, summary judgment is improper as long as there remains any genuine issue of material fact regarding the actual conduct of the defendants. Id. at 359-60 . … In deciding whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the court must (1) identify the specific constitutional right allegedly violated, (2) determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of

Price v. City of Fayetteville

22 F. Supp. 3d 551 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 21, 2014

In their motion for judgment on the pleadings, defendants argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity bars the individual capacity claims against defendant Sessoms. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Mathis v. Parks

741 F. Supp. 567 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 25, 1990

immunity. … Defendants’ Parks’ and Webb’s motion for dismissal on the basis of qualified immunity should be DENIED; (4).

Allen v. Cooper

244 F. Supp. 3d 525 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 23, 2017

These individual defendants have raised additional defenses of legislative and qualified immunity. … However, “the Court does not believe that qualified immunity applies to the individual defendants as a matter of law because the law of [copyright] infringement is clearly established, relegating the application of such immunity

Patel v. Moron

897 F. Supp. 2d 389 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 25, 2012

Alternatively, defendants assert the defense of qualified immunity. … In Mitchell , the Supreme Court observed that “[u]nless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Brown v. North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles

987 F. Supp. 451 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 28, 1997

The Supreme Court has dramatically broadened the scope of the Eleventh Amendment’s reach, however, creating immunity even in cases clearly *454 outside the plain language of the Amendment. Since Hans v. … It is well-established that “an uneonsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another State.” Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Auth. v.

Burch v. NC Department of Public Safety

158 F. Supp. 3d 449 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 19, 2016

Plaintiff also argues against application of sovereign immunity, public official immunity, and qualified immunity. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

Ballard v. Johns

17 F. Supp. 3d 511 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 27, 2014

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … issue was ‘clearly established’ at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct.”

Hicks Ex Rel. Hicks v. HALIFAX COUNTY BD. EDUC.

93 F. Supp. 2d 649 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 15, 1999

“To be clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity, ‘the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.’ ” Takoma Park, 134 … Lynch, 846 F.2d 960, 962 (4th Cir.1988) (qualified immunity does not preclude claim for injunctive relief).

Davis v. North Carolina

180 F. Supp. 2d 774 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 20, 2001

The amendment will allow Plaintiffs to avoid Defendants’ Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity defense, and is thus clearly not futile. 1 For these reasons, the *777 Court, and will accept the Amended Complaint. … It is well-established that a Plaintiffs injury must be “concrete and particularized, and ... actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical ...” in order to qualify as an “injury in fact.”

Cantrell v. United States

735 F. Supp. 670 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 19, 1988

Plaintiffs acknowledge that there is no evidence which clearly documents a specific request for admission by Puckett on July 12th. … The Fourth Circuit in Currie addressed the issue of whether VA mental health personnel enjoyed qualified statutory immunity prior to the 1986 amendment.

Spell v. McDaniel

591 F. Supp. 1090 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 12, 1984

Defendant City of Fayetteville and the supervisory defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity is DENIED. *1112 (4). … Paragraphs 2, 4 and 6 contain defendants’ assertion of their qualified good faith immunity defense.

Lamb v. John Umstead Hospital

19 F. Supp. 2d 498 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 1, 1998

For the disabled, the status quo is clearly not non-discriminatory. … Plaintiff has made allegations which, if true, could establish a prima facie case under the ADA.

Stott v. Martin

725 F. Supp. 1365 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 1989

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY On 9 December 1987 the court entered an order which denied, inter alia, the then defendants’ claim of qualified immunity. … Arias, 831 F.2d 11, 13 (1st Cir.1987) (holding that officials are entitled to “qualified immunity unless, at the time of the dismissal, ‘it was clearly established that employees in the particular positions at issue, in light

Stewart v. Hunt

598 F. Supp. 1342 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 28, 1984

Rather, a state official sued individually may raise a qualified immunity defense if his conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … However, qualified immunity only protects the individual from civil damages, it does not protect him from suits for injunctive relief. See id.

In Re Midway Airlines Corp.

283 B.R. 846 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Oct 7, 2002

A bankruptcy court’s findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Safety-Kleen, Inc. v. Wyche, 274 F.3d 846 , 859 (4th Cir.2001). However, conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. … Courts have devised two tests to determine whether an action qualifies as a proceeding pursuant to a governmental unit’s police or regulatory power. See Chao v.