Case law

Johnson v. City of Fayetteville

91 F. Supp. 3d 775 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 4, 2015

Qualified immunity provides government officials with immunity from suit for money damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer would … Nor can the court answer the second qualified immunity inquiry — whether the right was clearly established at the time of the official’s conduct — in Officer Koehler’s favor. Messerschmidt v.

Clabough

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 18, 2026

entitled to qualified immunity.”). … Forsythe, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Claudio v. United States

836 F. Supp. 1219 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 2, 1993

Moreover, even if the asserted right is “clearly established,” the qualified immunity defense still protects the official if “he neither knew nor should have known of the relevant legal standard.” … Rights Clearly Established The First and Fifth Amendment rights to free speech, due process and equal protection certainly are clearly established.

Barrett v. Board of Education

13 F. Supp. 3d 502 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 9, 2014

Qualified immunity. … The last two prongs of the qualified immunity test turn on “the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” Cole v.

Cooper v. Brunswick County Sheriff's Department

896 F. Supp. 2d 432 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 27, 2012

Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Price v. Dixon

961 F. Supp. 894 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 21, 1997

Qualified immunity operates to release government officials from suit if it cannot be shown that their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person in their position would have … Without expressly deciding this issue, however, the court finds that qualified immunity is appropriate based on the “clearly established law” analysis.

Bostic v. Rodriguez

667 F. Supp. 2d 591 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2009

Under Pearson , the court next proceeds to the second step in the qualified-immunity framework: was this right clearly established at the time of the alleged violation? … Therefore, the right was not clearly established, and Rodriguez is entitled to qualified immunity.

Pruitt v. Pernell

360 F. Supp. 2d 738 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 5, 2005

Therefore, immunity can be established by showing the right allegedly violated was (1) not “clearly established” at the time, or (2) that the violation of a “clearly established” right by a police officer was reasonable when … Therefore, to determine whether Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the

Wyche v. City of Franklinton

837 F. Supp. 137 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 5, 1993

Caldwell is entitled to qualified immunity if he can establish that, in light of the clearly established principles governing the use of force to effect an arrest, he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that … In Slattery , the Fourth Circuit elaborated upon the scope of qualified immunity: The right of the plaintiff must be established so clearly that a reasonable official would know what he is doing violates that right.

Munn-Goins v. Board of Trustees of Bladen Community College

658 F. Supp. 2d 713 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 17, 2009

Page contend that qualified immunity bars plaintiffs section 1983 claim for money damages. … , 119 S.Ct. 1692 . *725 In most cases, the qualified immunity analysis does not require factual findings, because the inquiry is a “purely legal one: whether the facts alleged ... support a claim of violation of clearly

Petersen v. Midgett

140 F. Supp. 3d 490 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 25, 2015

Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

U.S. Tobacco Coop., Inc. v. Big S. Wholesale of Va., LLC

365 F. Supp. 3d 604 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 19, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for a statutory or constitutional violation so long as they can reasonably believe that their conduct does not violate clearly established law. Harlow v. … Accordingly, as the rights alleged to have been violated were not clearly established, the Big Sky defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiffs' federal RICO claims. B.

Ward v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

161 F.R.D. 38 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 22, 1995

, 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.

Iglesias v. Wolford

667 F. Supp. 2d 573 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 28, 2009

Qualified immunity is “ ‘an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.’ ” Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 815 … In most cases, the qualified immunity analysis does not require factual findings, because the inquiry is a “purely legal one: whether the facts alleged ... support a claim of violation of clearly established law.”

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro

981 F. Supp. 406 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Oct 16, 1997

Defendants argue that they are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … In such instances, the defense of qualified immunity is not necessary and should not be reached.

Aikens v. Ingram

71 F. Supp. 3d 562 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 4, 2014

Qualified Immunity ■ Qualified immunity likewise bars any monetary relief against defendants in their individual capacities. … “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

Perry v. Pamlico County

88 F. Supp. 3d 518 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 18, 2015

Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

LeBlanc v. City of Sanford

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 8, 2021

Plaintiff meets the first prong to defeat Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity. 2. Was Plaintiff's Right to Due Process Clearly Established? … established, and that they are, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity.

Stockton v. Wake County

173 F. Supp. 3d 292 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 24, 2016

Umesi asserts the defense of qualified- immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability,-for-civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Bennett v. Monette

507 F. Supp. 2d 514 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 8, 2007

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields public officials “from civil liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Alternatively, even assuming plaintiff established a constitutional violation, plaintiffs claim fails on the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis.