Case law

WHITE v. THE CITY OF GREENSBORO

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 22, 2022

The Greensboro Defendants contend they are entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established that “an officer must make an independent determination that his entry into … Thus, there is an insufficient basis to conclude that he violated a clearly established right to overcome qualified immunity, and Lowe’s motion for summary judgment will be granted.

McAdoo v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

248 F. Supp. 3d 705 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 29, 2017

-flagship university of the State of West .Virginia, the University is clearly, of statewide concern and interest.”). UNC is clearly involved with statewide concerns. … [and] it is immune from suit unless its sovereign immunity has been waived.”); Aune v.

Goodwin Ex Rel. Goodwin v. Furr

25 F. Supp. 2d 713 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 29, 1998

The public employee has no immunity, but the public officer is immune from liability in his or her individual capacity for negligent acts pertaining to discretionary duties. … This immunity is termed “official immunity” and is to be distinguished from governmental or sovereign immunity. Id. Official immunity does not shield the "public officer" from liability for intentional acts. Epps v.

MCCLAIN v. CAUSEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 1, 2021

This is particularly so because government actors, like the defendants here, are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights. … It is enough to say that the law is not clearly established as to Mr.

Pinehurst Enterprises, Inc. v. Town of Southern Pines

690 F. Supp. 444 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 24, 1988

Moreover, an authorizing statute establishes a “state policy to displace competition” if it clearly contemplates anticompetitive conduct by a municipality. See id. at 42 , 105 S.Ct. at 1718 , 85 L.Ed.2d at 31 . … In the instant case the entity which qualifies under the statute as an “any such association” is Moore County, the entity which received the FmHA loan.

TYLER v. LOCKLEAR

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2022

This court finds that at the time of his disciplinary conviction, there was no clearly established law or rule that, in order to violate the Disciplinary Procedures, ch. … ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’”

SATTERFIELD

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 7, 2026

Amendment rights, and he is entitled to qualified immunity. … California, 395 U.S. 752, constitutional violation occurred, and (2) whether the right was clearly Thus, Knaub is entitled to qualified established at the time of the immunity.

CROCKETT v. BLACKWOOD

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 9, 2020

Did Ashley violate clearly established law? … As a result, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Ashley violated Crockett’s clearly established right to be free from excessive force and is therefore not protected by qualified immunity.

Darling v. Falls

236 F. Supp. 3d 914 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 17, 2017

Further, the Judicial Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs claims based on absolute judicial immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity. (Id. at 2.) … It is well-established that official capacity claims are, in essence, claims against the State. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 , 109 S.Ct. 2304 , 105 L.Ed.2d 45 (1989).

LAND v. BURKE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 30, 2020

Police officers possess immunity from Section 1983 liability for money damages as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations, but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.”

POLK

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 12, 2026

the violation of a clearly established right by Sergeant Clark. … Thus, Defendants assert that Sergeant Clark is entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 17.)

ATKINSON v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 23, 2025

immunity issues.” … that “(1) his appeal was not inextricably intertwined with Godfrey’s qualified immunity defense; (2) qualified immunity does not apply to [Plaintiff’s] claims against Coats in

Heckman v. University of North Carolina

19 F. Supp. 2d 468 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 11, 1998

(In re Celotex Corp.), 124 F.3d 619, 628 (4th Cir.1997) (stating that a plaintiff has the burden of establishing grounds for jurisdiction over the person). … in relevant part that those who enter into a contract in the amount of $10,-000 or more with an agency or department of the United States will be required to "take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified

CONNELL v. RUSSELL, PA-C

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 28, 2024

clearly established at the time.” … immunity under the then-clearly established law, see id. at 306-07 (“[A defendant’s] response to a perceived risk must be more than . . . simply unreasonable.”).

ROBINSON v. FRICK

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 3, 2024

Qualified Immunity Defendant also asserts he has qualified immunity to shield him from any claims. (Docket Entry 30 at 21-22.) … Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

MATHIS v. CASWELL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF EDUCATION

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 23, 2021

Pursuant to the doctrine of qualified immunity, government officials are shielded from liability for civil damages so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within … On the other hand, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Carter is not entitled to qualified immunity because her right to a hearing was a clearly established statutory right. (ECF No. 28 at 8.)

ESTATE OF JOSEPH LOPEZ v. HAMILTON

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 2, 2023

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge of a reasonable person.” … In other words, public official immunity “is unavailable to officers who violate clearly established rights.” Bailey, 349 F.3d at 742.

Thomas v. Northern Telecom, Inc.

157 F. Supp. 2d 627 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 11, 2000

In addition, both cases cited by Plaintiff in which courts from other circuits recognized this exception are clearly distinguishable from the current case. … In contrast, the Fourth Circuit has clearly adopted the doctrine in the civil rights context in Buschi v. Kirven, 775 F.2d at 1251 . Thus the Washington case is inapposite to the present case.

Jennings v. UNIVERSITY OF N. CAR. AT CHAPEL HILL

340 F. Supp. 2d 666 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 27, 2004

It is not clearly factually inconsistent with the Amended Answer, particularly since it was given in response to a less than clear line of questioning. … This may be testified to by either the custodian of the information or a qualified witness. Id. The exhibits at issue are as follows.

Dobson v. Central Carolina Bank and Trust Co.

240 F. Supp. 2d 516 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 22, 2003

Defendants further contend that even if Defendant Fox’s statements constitute slander per se, Defendant Fox is entitled to qualified immunity because she made the statements to a member of law enforcement. … a high degreee [sic] of awareness that they were probably false,” and are therefore not shielded by qualified immunity.