Case law

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.

Naef

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 8, 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 established.”

Grant v. United States

92 F. Supp. 369 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 1, 1950

C., which caused the pollution of the waters in which their cultivated oyster beds had been established, and resulted in the loss of their cultivated oysters.” … On the other hand, assuming that Congress only intended to waive the Government’s immunity, it would have been difficult to find words to express such intention more clearly.

Tyner v. Brunswick County Department of Social Services

776 F. Supp. 2d 133 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 2, 2011

Congress unmistakably intended to abrogate the states’ Eleventh Amendment immunity 6 in enacting Title II. … They contend that the affirmative defenses, if established, will eliminate some or all of plaintiffs’ claims. See id., at p. 5.

Hernandez

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 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. … 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.”

International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. North Carolina State Ports Authority

370 F. Supp. 33 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 30, 1974

represented by the plaintiff were “executives” or “officials” of the Ports Authority, and no evidence presented to the NMB indicates that any of the employees involved in this case have attained a rank or status that would qualify … Clearly collective bargaining between carriers and their employees covered by the RLA has the “imprimatur of federal law upon it.” Hanson, supra. In State v. Taylor, 353 U.S. 553 , 77 S.

Judkins v. Veterans Administration

415 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 28, 2005

The court dismissed the action, holding that plaintiff must pursue his claim through the administrative process established by Congress in 38 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq. Id. at 722. Similarly, in Carney v. G.I. … court further held that 38 U.S.C. § 511 (a) does not foreclose district court review under the APA because “review of payee determinations by the Secretary” are not “subject to review under the alternate scheme of review” established

Calloway-Durham v. NC Department of Justice

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 22, 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.”

Brody v. North Carolina

557 F. Supp. 184 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 11, 1983

It has been established that a state may consent to suit against it in federal court by waiving its eleventh amendment immunity. Parden v. … The third and final step required to establish constructive waiver of eleventh amendment immunity by a state is that the state must be considered to have consented to be sued by entering into the relevant federally regulated

Powell v. Super 8 Motels, Inc.

181 F. Supp. 2d 561 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 13, 2000

The court in Arnold specifically referred to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and stated that the pleadings should be tightened in matters that specifically state allegations of conspiracy, absolute immunity, and to claims plead against … This court finds that the complaint is not clearly frivolous and does indeed state a claim on which relief could be granted. Therefore, defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. III.

Estate of Jada Johnson, L.J., the minor daughter of Jada Johnson, Richard Iwanski, individually, as executor of the Estate of Jada Johnson and guardian of L.J., and Maria Iwanski, individually, as executor of the Estate of Jada Johnson and guardian of L.J. v. Sergeant Timothy Rugg individually, Officer Zacharius Borom, individually, and John and Jane Doe’s 1-100, City of Fayetteville employees and police officers

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 25, 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.”

Antrican v. Buell

158 F. Supp. 2d 663 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 17, 2001

III.Eleventh Amendment Immunity Defendants first assert that this action is barred under the Eleventh Amendment. … Second, the implementing regulations clearly provide that the state must not discriminate within the categorically needy group.

Irving v. The City of Raleigh

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 13, 2023

To escape dismissal of a complaint on qualified immunity grounds, plaintiffs must allege defendants violated a right that was clearly established at the time of the violation. Evans v. … Because plaintiffs cannot show a violation of a clearly established right, the SEU defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

McCollum v. Robeson County

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Oct 21, 2021

violated were clearly established at the relevant time, and concluded that they were. … clearly established.

Florida, Department of Revenue v. Sparkman (In Re York-Hannover Developments, Inc.)

190 B.R. 62 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 30, 1995

Since the decision in Union Gas, virtually every circuit court to have reached the issue has held that the Eleventh Amendment is not a jurisdictional bar where Congress has clearly abrogated the presumption of immunity pursuant … [t]o establish ... uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.”

Wetherington v. Phillips

380 F. Supp. 426 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 12, 1974

Barker, the state prosecutor, was clearly acting in his quasi-judicial capacity when he moved to amend the warrant against the plaintiff. … It is well established that a counterclaim predicated upon malicious prosecution of the action in which the counterclaim was filed must be dismissed. Alberto-Culver Company, v.

Human Rights Defense Center v. Ishee

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

establish this proposition for purposes of qualified immunity. … This is insufficient to clearly establish a right for qualified immunity purposes. See, e.g., Booker, 855 F.3d at 538–39.

Laughinghouse v. North Carolina Ports Railway Commission

679 F. Supp. 537 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 9, 1988

Adopting language from the dissenting opinion in Parden , the Court stated that “[o]nly when Congress has clearly considered the problem and expressly declared that any State which undertakes given regulable conduct will … , since the FELA was predicated upon Congress’ Commerce Clause powers, was the language of the Act sufficient to establish Congressional intent to bar an eleventh amendment defense by state employers.

Hardin v. Fuqua

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 8, 2022

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.”

Sheppard v. Coleman

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 24, 2021

Sheriff Coleman contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity on count two because it allegedly was not clearly established on February 10, 2017, that Sheppard’s February 8, 2017 statements to Sheriff Coleman constituted … The right to be free from retaliation under sections 1983 and 1981 for opposing race discrimination was clearly established on February 10, 2017.