Case law

Moore v. Bennett

777 F. Supp. 2d 969 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 23, 2011

Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. b.

Stott v. Martin

783 F. Supp. 970 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 12, 1992

It therefore reversed the district court’s order on the qualified immunity issue. Id. In Echevarria v. … defendants’ actions were protected by qualified immunity. 25 IV.

Evans v. Pitt County Department of Social Services

972 F. Supp. 2d 778 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 18, 2013

Accordingly, a qualified immunity defense “involves a two-step inquiry, asking first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.” Id. (quotation omitted). … violation sufficient to overcome qualified immunity.

Davis v. Lewis

376 F. Supp. 3d 629 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 22, 2019

Failure to Re-hire To establish a prima face case of failure to rehire, plaintiff must show "(1) he is a member of a protected group; (2) he applied for the position in question; (3) he was qualified for the position; and … "Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the State is immune from suit absent waiver of immunity." Meyer v. Walls , 347 N.C. 97 , 104, 489 S.E.2d 880 , 884 (1997) (citing Gammons v. N.C.

Cain

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 27, 2026

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. … As for the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, a suspect’s right to be free from gratuitous and disproportionate force when he has submitted to the police is clearly established.

Worthington v. Commodity Credit Corp.

157 F. Supp. 497 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 9, 1957

By his own testimony, it is established that Mr. … Thus the direction to use to the maximum extent is qualified, and instead of being a directed policy in itself becomes a condition precedent to the availability of other possible action on the part of the defendant.

Broadwell v. United States

234 F. Supp. 17 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 14, 1964

It is not a waiver by the government of immunity from suit, but presupposes waiver of immunity under some other statutory provision. See: First National Bank of Emlenton, Pennsylvania v. … Nor have they clearly established, as required by the rule in Enochs, supra, “that under no circumstances could the government ultimately prevail” in this ease.

North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission

768 F. Supp. 2d 818 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 3, 2011

On February 3, 2011 — a few days after the instant lawsuit was filed — defendant denied this motion, concluding that plaintiff did not qualify for the state action exemption be *821 cause it had not shown sufficient state … This exception to the requirement of final agency action is met if the agency’s actions “clearly exceeded its statutory authority.” Id. at 370 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Robinson v. E. Carolina Univ.

329 F. Supp. 3d 156 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 3, 2018

Because the court determined herein above that defendant MagMutual has HCQIA immunity for submitting the NPDB report pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 11137 (c), plaintiff has not established a likelihood of success on the merits for … Because the court finds that plaintiff failed to allege a constitutionally protected property or liberty interest, it is unnecessary for the court to address defendant Cook's assertion of qualified immunity.

Am. Humanist Ass'n v. Perry

303 F. Supp. 3d 421 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 28, 2018

The court notes that although defendants asserted the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in their answer, they have not argued that they are entitled to qualified immunity in their motion for summary judgment. … Grant , 224 F.3d 293 , 296-97 (4th Cir. 2000) (finding that the defendants waived qualified immunity by failing to pursue it prior to remand even though the defendants technically pled "immunity" in their answer).

Flood v. Hardy

868 F. Supp. 809 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 21, 1994

LIABILITY OF SHERIFF HARDY AND DEPUTY SHERIFF CARTER The defendants Hardy and Carter allege that they are entitled to assert a defense of qualified immunity, and therefore should be granted summary judgment. … Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability when they are performing discretionary governmental duties, so long as their conduct does not take them outside the scope of their duties. Harlow v.

Fothergill v. Jones County Board of Education

841 F. Supp. 2d 915 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 8, 2012

The Court held that qualified immunity barred all claims against Defendants in their personal capacities and sovereign immunity barred all claims against the Board. … Plaintiffs have not established a “clear showing” that Matthew’s right to educational opportunity, as defined in Leandro, has been denied by the School Board.

Sheila Lee v. Officer Molly O’Hara, in her individual capacity, Officer Richard J. Rodriguez, in his individual capacity, Officer Don Bell, in his individual capacity, and Krista Zentner, in her individual capacity

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 16, 2026

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. … 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

Edwards

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 5, 2026

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.”

Lanham

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 2, 2026

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

Talley v. Folwell

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 21, 2024

A court has discretion in deciding which prong of the qualified immunity analysis — whether there was a violation of a constitutional right or whether the right was clearly established ~ to consider first. … established, and thus defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Wright v. North Carolina Department of Health & Human Services

405 F. Supp. 2d 631 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 5, 2005

Accordingly, because North Carolina waived its sovereign immunity to plaintiffs suit under the ADA and the ADEA as set forth in the Act, North Carolina’s Eleventh Amendment immunity does not divest this court of jurisdiction … Under that framework, a plaintiff first must establish a prima facie case. See, e.g., O’Connor v. Consol.

Sharpe v. Best

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 11, 2025

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. … 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.”

Dalenko v. Stephens

917 F. Supp. 2d 535 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 8, 2013

It is well-established that judges, in exercising the authority vested in them, are absolutely immune from civil lawsuits for money damages. Mireles v. … liability if he tried a criminal case because he clearly lacked all subject matter jurisdiction.

Dunlap-Banks v. City of Fayetteville

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 2, 2024

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. … However, to overcome defendants’ qualified immunity defense, plaintiff must also establish that the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time.