Case law

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.

BONE EL v. SOLOMON

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 6, 2020

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability inmates clearly retain their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion in … Thus, the traditional two-step qualified immunity inquiry requires a court to determine: “(1) whether the official violated a constitutional right; and if so, (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

HINES v. JOHNSON

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

was clearly established.” … And in the absence of a constitutional violation, qualified immunity applies and the court need not address whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established

Stuart v. Huff

834 F. Supp. 2d 424 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 19, 2011

The Defendants have not established either element. … The Defendants interpret the statute to require that a physician or qualified professional provide the listed information and, if a qualified professional provides the information, that a physician be available to ask and

WEBSTER v. APPLE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 10, 2023

a clearly established constitutional right.” … Likewise, precedent clearly established that “[t]he use of any unnecessary, gratuitous, and disproportionate force . . .

TUCKER v. KIVETT

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 16, 2019

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 … Thus, the traditional two-step qualified immunity inquiry requires a court to determine: “(1) whether the official violated a constitutional right; and if so, (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

ROOKS v. NC DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 20, 2025

To establish a violation of either statute, plaintiffs must prove (1) they have a disability; (2) they are otherwise qualified to receive the benefits of a public service, program, or activity; and (3) they were … The Plaintiff also clearly pled sufficient facts to permit a jury to find that his disability was the reason for the withdrawal of the employment offer.

WHITE v. THE CITY OF GREENSBORO

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 21, 2022

Fourth Amendment Qualified Immunity The reconsideration motion as to qualified immunity for the Greensboro Defendants has made plain that the court’s prior decision … Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability for civil damages under § 1983, so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established

CLEMONS v. THE CITY OF GREENSBORO

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 19, 2022

To that end, qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge of … Here, Defendants do not appear to dispute that Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment rights were clearly established at the time of the searches; rather, Defendants argue that they did not violate Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment

PETRISOR v. RODGERS

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

Qualified immunity “shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Defendant Walker is Entitled to Qualified Immunity Defendants also argue that Defendant Walker is entitled to qualified immunity on this claim.

DUNCAN v. PENDERGRASS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 13, 2020

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, Defendants Hinkle and Thompson are “generally shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as [their] conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “Unless the [P]laintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, [D]efendant[s] pleading qualified immunity [are] entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.”

BRATTAIN v. STANLY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 29, 2020

“[A]n official who performs an act clearly established to be beyond the scope of his discretionary authority is not entitled to claim qualified immunity under § 1983.” … As such, its use was “clearly established to be beyond [Goodman’s] discretionary authority,” and Goodman cannot assert a qualified immunity defense at this time.9 See Allen, 106 F.3d at 593.

Whedbee v. United States

352 F. Supp. 2d 618 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 7, 2005

The FTCA was enacted as a limited waiver of the federal government’s sovereign immunity for torts committed by employees. … It is a limited waiver, because at the same time that Congress established this avenue for suit, Congress also established exceptions to that waiver.

ALLEN v. CITY OF GRAHAM, NC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 2, 2021

Specifically, the City defendants assert qualified immunity for Lt. … As an affirmative defense, the defendants bear the burden of establishing qualified immunity. Ridpath v. Bd. of Governors Marshall Univ., 447 F.3d 292, 305 (4th Cir. 2006).

MITCHELL v. WINSTON SALEM STATE UNIVERSITY

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

was clearly established.” … Because Plaintiff must plausibly allege a constitutional violation and that the constitutional right violated was clearly established in order to defeat qualified immunity, the court analyzes

Evans v. Hughes

135 F. Supp. 555 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 14, 1955

Jopes, 142 U.S. 18 , at page 24, 12 S.Ct. 109 , at page 111, 35 L.Ed. 919 , the court holds: “And the same rule of immunity extends to civil as to criminal cases. … Platt, 32 Conn. 75 , fully illustrates the extent to which immunity goes.

DALE v. BARNES

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 4, 2024

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 … Thus, the traditional two-step qualified immunity inquiry requires a court to determine: “(1) whether the official violated a constitutional right; and if so, (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

MCI CONSTRUCTORS, INC. v. Hazen and Sawyer, PC

310 F. Supp. 2d 754 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 10, 2004

Although not a case involving governmental immunity, the court in Fawcett v. Town of Mt. … In addition, the contract clearly states that the City has the right to complete the work itself.

RODGERS v. THE TOWN OF CHINA GROVE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 20, 2023

Indeed, qualified immunity “protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v. … Instead, “the question is whether a reasonable officer in the same circumstances * Defendants also discuss the question of whether a right allegedly violated was “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes

WALL v. GULLEDGE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 2025

“An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if he or she deprived an individual of a constitutional right and that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Id. … person, a violation of a clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be arrested only upon probable cause ensues.”