Case law

Guilford County Community Action Program, Inc. v. Wilson

348 F. Supp. 2d 548 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 6, 2004

This language does not indicate that any specific individual necessarily qualifies for CSBG money. … Their claims, therefore, are clearly subject to dismissal pursuant to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. b.

STEPHENS v. LEAKE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 9, 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

NELSON v. GUILFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 20, 2024

clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Said another way, if the allegations show that the officers lacked the required subjective knowledge, then the officers would not have violated clearly established law.

KHAN v. UNC HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 24, 2021

Sterilizer Co., 126 F.3d 494, 502 (3d Cir. 1997) (“Unlike a plaintiff in an ADA discrimination case, a plaintiff in an ADA retaliation case need not establish that he is a ‘qualified individual with a disability.’ … Khan’s allegations therefore clearly satisfy the first two elements of a retaliation claim.

PATTERSON v. STANLY COUNTY DETENTION CENTER

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 2, 2024

] conduct was clearly established at the time.” … That unreasonable response theory cannot survive summary judgment because, under the legal standard applicable at the time of these events (i.e., the clearly established law for purposes of the qualified

PERRY v. GUILL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 22, 2024

Qualified Immunity Generally, under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a corrections officer who “has violated a prisoner’s constitutional right” is “shielded from liability … . . . if an objectively reasonable officer could have believed that his actions were lawful in light of clearly established law.”

DARDEN v. COOPER

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

In order to overcome a defense of qualified immunity, it must be shown that (1) the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff made out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right was “clearly established … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232–33 (1991) (dismissing on the basis of qualified immunity).

R.W. v. CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION

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

First is the question of whether the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

PICKETT v. LANCE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 7, 2023

functions generally are shielded 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.” … “Qualified immunity may be raised in a motion to dismiss.” Jenkins v. Medjord, 119 F.3d 1156, 1159 (4th Cir. 1997).

MAUNEY v. CUGINO

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 15, 2019

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In evaluating qualified immunity, courts consider “(1) whether the plaintiff has established the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established

JONES v. ALVAREZ

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

Qualified Immunity for Johnson’s Seizure of the License Defendants argue Johnson is entitled to qualified immunity as to the third interaction … 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

MCNEILL v. GADDY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 26, 2021

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

Zuzul v. McDonald

98 F. Supp. 3d 852 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 2015

“Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature.” Id.; see also United States v. … United States, 158 F.Supp.2d 619, 630 (D.Md.2001) (“When a plaintiff has failed to establish a waiver of sovereign immunity, a federal court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case.” (citing Global Mail Ltd. v. U.S.

JORDAN v. CHATHAM COUNTY SCHOOLS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 29, 2023

To bring a claim under either statute, a plaintiff must establish: “(1) they have a disability; (2) they are otherwise qualified to receive the benefits of a public service, program, … “A coverage agreement with the North Carolina School Boards Trust [NCSBT] ‘does not waive [sovereign] immunity because the NCSBT does not qualify as liability insurance under section

McNeil v. Scotland County

213 F. Supp. 2d 559 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 24, 2002

Even assuming arguendo that Plaintiff has a disability under the ADA, Plaintiff failed to establish that she is a “qualified individual” as defined by the ADA. … Furthermore, “[i]n mandating only those modifications that qualify as reasonable, Congress clearly meant to avoid placing employers in an untenable business position.” Id. (citing Southeastern Community College v.

NEWTON v. LOCKLEAR

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 12, 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 … 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 of its violation.”

Equal Employment Oppurtunity Commission v. Dollar General Corp.

252 F. Supp. 2d 277 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 20, 2003

Bost was a quali *282 fied individual with a disability, Plaintiff cannot establish its prima facie case. … Therefore, to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory firing, “a plaintiff must prove: (1) he has a disability; (2) he is a qualified individual; and (3) in discharging] him, his employer diseriminate[d] against [him

Forsyth County Hospital Authority, Inc. v. Bowen

675 F. Supp. 1002 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 11, 1987

For these reasons, the parties have stipulated that plaintiff and the Foundation qualify as “related organizations” under 42 C.F.R. § 405.427 (1982). {Id. at 257). … findings, and conclusions upon any of the following specific bases: (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

VANG v. ASHBY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 17, 2020

“Qualified immunity from [Section] 1983 claims ‘protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “Determining whether qualified immunity applies involves a two-prong inquiry: ‘whether the facts make out a violation of a constitutional right’ and ‘whether the right at issue was ‘clearly

Edwards v. High Point Police Department

559 F. Supp. 2d 653 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 3, 2008

If the answer is yes, the Court must consider whether the constitutional right was clearly established and whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that the officer’s conduct was unlawful. … Qualified immunity protects law enforcement officers from “bad guesses in gray areas” and ensures that they are liable only “for transgressing bright lines.” Maciariello v.