Case law

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.

McRae v. Pfeffer

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 9, 2019

defense of qualified immunity.” … 731, 742 (4th Cir. 2003) (“The police officers concede, and we agree, that public officers’ immunity, at the least, is unavailable to officers who violate clearly established rights because an officer acts with malice when

Kennedy v. Rowe

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 24, 2024

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 … “An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243-44 (2009); see Anderson v.

Pritchard v. Mobley

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 30, 2022

Defendants answered [DE 13], pleading as defenses qualified immunity, public official immunity', and sovereign immunity. … to qualified immunity.

L.P. v. Wake County Board of Education

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 15, 2021

Public school officials are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity for § 1983 claims unless the official (1) violates a federal statutory or constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established and one … The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Moffett found that a public school official was not entitled to qualified immunity when the official violated a disabled student’s clearly established constitutional right to liberty

Holland

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 2026

Similarly, Leipold’s assertions of public official immunity and qualified immunity are inappropriate for resolution at this stage. … established.

Finch v. Wilson County

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 5, 2020

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 … right violated was clearly established.”

Raible v. Campbell

911 F. Supp. 185 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 9, 1996

Therefore, if a party is an employee of the United States for purposes of the Clarification Act, the suit is governed by the SAA, which establishes an immunity for agents or employees of the United States in lieu of recovery … The opinion makes clear that IOM was properly dismissed from this litigation, as it was clearly entitled to rely upon the exclusivity, clause.

Appalachian Outdoor Advertising Co. v. North Carolina Dep't of Transportation

61 F. Supp. 2d 459 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 24, 1998

The APA, however, is not a font of federal court jurisdiction here, as it is clearly limited to decisions of “each authority of the Government of the United States.” 5 U.S.C. § 701 (b)(1). … Further, Congress has not abrogated the Defendants’ immunity from suit in the Act.

Spencer v. Glaser

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 21, 2025

Qualified Immunity 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 a reasonable person would have known.”

Ussery v. Cooper

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 20, 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. … However, when deciding whether qualified immunity applies, “the clearly established law must be ‘particularized’ to the facts of the case.” White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. 73, 79 (2017). “And the particulars matter.

Bufflehead Point, LLC v. Pamlico County

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 4, 2020

Lenhart is entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983 unless “(1) [he] violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of [his] conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’” … 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.

Knight v. City of Fayetteville

234 F. Supp. 3d 669 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 10, 2017

On July 18, 2016, defendants filed the instant motion seeking judgment as a matter of law, wherein they rest upon governmental immunity, public official immunity, and qualified immunity. … Excessive Force Where a defendant police officer asserts a defense of qualified immunity, a two-step inquiry applies.

Williams v. Avnet, Inc.

910 F. Supp. 1124 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 7, 1995

When the record clearly indicated an ADA plaintiff had represented to her various insurers that she could not work, the plaintiff was barred from claiming she was qualified for the job. … Finally, the facts clearly establish that at the time of the discharge, plaintiff was not performing her job at a level that met her employer’s legitimate expectations.

Sharpe v. Winterville Police Department

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 20, 2020

Helms is entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983 unless “(1) [he] violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of [his] conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.”” … 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. Ct. at 1152-54; Taylor v.

Mason v. Carteret County, North Carolina

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 25, 2023

immunity shields them from liability where plaintiff has not pled adequately she was deprived of a clearly established right. … The court next turns to the assertion that defendants possess qualified immunity where neither of them violated a clearly established right.

Staley v. Homeland, Inc.

368 F. Supp. 1344 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 2, 1974

Section 94 has generally been construed to hold that nationally chartered banks may be sued only in the district in which they are established and that a bank is established only at the place cited in its charter. … Morgan the bank defended the ease on the merits and did not claim immunity until appeal. (It was held that if the bank had initially claimed immunity, it would have been recognized).

Godon v. NC Crime Control & Public Safety

959 F. Supp. 284 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 4, 1997

Alternatively, Defendants argue that even if Plaintiff did have a right to complain, the defendants certainly had a reasonable belief that she did not, and are therefore entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law. … Eleventh Amendment immunity does not protect state officials in their official capacities from § 1983 claims for injunctive relief”) (citing Will v.

Gray v. Laws

915 F. Supp. 747 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 20, 1994

To establish a cause of action for an alleged wrongful discharge in violation of the First Amendment, a public employee must satisfy two requirements: (1) the speech for which the employee was allegedly dismissed must qualify … Defendant Reimer asserts the defense of public officer immunity to this claim.