Case law

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.

MARTIN v. SEABOLT

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 7, 2025

of qualified immunity to Defendants at the summary judgment stage. … Accordingly, Plaintiff’s arguments regarding qualified immunity miss the mark. Regardless, disagreement with established legal principles provides no grounds for Rule 59 relief.

Gemini Enterprises, Inc. v. WFMY Television Corp.

470 F. Supp. 559 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 1, 1979

Having determined that Congress had clearly intended § 1985(3) to reach racially motivated private conspiracies, the final step in the Griffin Court’s analysis was to determine whether Congress had constitutional power to … more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified

LEWIS v. PETERKIN

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 14, 2020

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’

ROBINSON v. WILLIAMS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 18, 2025

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

JACKSON v. OXENDINE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 15, 2025

Plaintiff argues that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity because they intentionally violated Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional rights, were motivated by malicious intent, and willingly violated … 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

HARRINGTON v. SOUTHERN HEALTH PARTNERS, INC.

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 11, 2023

is clearly not applicable or for which, after the defense is asserted, a immunity not to be applicable. … of governmental immunity is clearly not applicable” did not waive governmental immunity).

HERNANDEZ v. REYNOLDS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 24, 2025

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

BURROUGHS v. THE COUNTY OF ROCKINGHAM

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 28, 2019

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 … There remains the question of whether Officer Martin is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity from suit because “the law did not put [him] on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful.”

Banks v. Jefferson-Smurfit

176 F. Supp. 2d 499 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 18, 2001

Plaintiff has established that he is a member of a protected class, that he was qualified for the position of sheeter, and that he was discharged. … Defendant disciplined Plaintiff for violating a clearly-established plant rule, just as it had done for other employees in the past.

BELTON v. FIELDS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 18, 2025

Even if they are material, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. … Even if a reasonable jury could conclude that the use of the smock was excessive under the circumstances, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, because the constitutional right at issue was not “clearly established

Pinehurst Airlines, Inc. v. Resort Air Services, Inc.

476 F. Supp. 543 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 1, 1979

Action Immunity from the Antitrust Laws: City of Lafayette v. … First, they contend that since the Board is immune from antitrust liability, there can be no conspiracy. In view of the disposition of the Board's immunity claim, this position is unpersuasive.

Shipley Ex Rel. Shipley v. U.S. Postal Service

286 F. Supp. 2d 657 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 2, 2003

The standard that applies in the context of a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is clearly settled. Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir.1982). … It is well established that the United States Government, as sovereign, is immune from suit unless it consents to be sued. Gould v. U.S.

McInnis v. North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources

223 F. Supp. 2d 758 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 18, 2002

she applied or sought to apply; (3) she was qualified for the position; and (4) she was rejected for the position under circumstances giving rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.” … Similarly, as subdivisions of the State of North Carolina, Defendants are entitled to the protection of sovereign immunity as to the tort claims raised by Plaintiff. See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 143-291(a) (1999); Guthrie v.

Teamsters Local 391 v. Ball Corp.

355 F. Supp. 2d 803 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 14, 2005

The example clearly demonstrates that the employees only receive an amount equal to 5% of qualified earnings, and the remainder of the reserve is payable to the company. … The 5% qualified earnings cap on any negotiated plan is clearly set out in the first sentence of the section of the labor agreement concerning gainsharing.

COVINGTON v. BROWN

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

Qualified Immunity Defendants allege that they are protected by qualified immunity from Plaintiffs individual capacity claims. (Defs.’ Br. at 8-10.) … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability unless “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right” and “the tight was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

RHOADS v. GUILFORD COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 27, 2024

“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 … illegal conduct, let alone a violation of “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

WHITE v. THE CITY OF GREENSBORO

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2019

entitled to qualified immunity. … The “clearly established” prong of a qualified immunity analysis considers the “‘objective legal reasonableness’ of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established

Froneberger v. Yadkin County Schools

630 F. Supp. 291 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 13, 1986

time plaintiff applied, he was suffering from a mental disability rendering it impossible for plaintiff to establish he was qualified for the teaching position. … Thus, plaintiff by his own pleadings has established that he was not qualified for the position for which he applied with Yadkin. Therefore, defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

MANNO

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 23, 2026

qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability unless “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right” and “the tight was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”