Case law

SCOTT v. THE CITY OF DURHAM

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 27, 2021

Qualified Immunity Mr. … Richards contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time that reliance on information from another police officer without further investigation was inappropriate.

ALLEN v. ELWELL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 2, 2022

established’ prong of the qualified immunity test” and “no citation to cases actually applying the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity test” (brackets and certain internal … As such, qualified immunity does not shield Defendant Elwell from Plaintiff’s claim.

Bean v. Taylor

408 F. Supp. 614 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 10, 1976

Then on October 5, 1973, Crocker wrote Taylor that Bean could not remain on the job without retaking the Sanitarian II test and qualifying as a new appointee. … To hire one not coming within the terms of the established rules would be to violate Chapter 126.

ALEXANDER

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 27, 2026

And allegedly detained him while securing even if not, qualified immunity bars a search warrant for the motel room. this suit. … Regarding civil rights conspiracy, And assuming that was not the case, “[t]o establish a civil conspiracy under qualified immunity protects her from § 1983, [the plaintiff] must present liability regardless.

TEASLEY v. HOKE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 18, 2023

“Qualified immunity protects government officials 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 … To bring a defense of qualified immunity, the Court examines (1) whether the alleged facts establish a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether a reasonably official would have known that their actions were

LEWIS v. BRATHWAITE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 15, 2020

“Qualified immunity is ‘an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.’” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 237 (quoting Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985)). … “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

RHODES v. TALTON

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

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

LIGHT v. POLLOCK

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 8, 2024

Then, we view that excesstve-force claim through the lens of the affirmative defense of qualified immunity. When a qualified-immunity defense is raised, we apply a two-step test. … While it is possible that either qualified immunity could apply or that no constitutional violation could be established where the shooting was (1) accidental, caused by Mr.

Doby v. Brown

135 F. Supp. 584 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 4, 1955

They undertake to establish jurisdiction in this court on the ground of the Fourteenth Amendment and Section 1343 of Title 28 of the U. S. Code Annotated. … This statute is commonly referred to as the Civil Rights Statute and has to do with the- privileges and immunities of citizens or persons in the United States under, and by virtue of, the laws of the United States.

MCDOUGALD v. KERSEY

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

Government officials are protected from § 1983 liability by qualified immunity if their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Pearson v, Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009). … And those rights were clearly established.

HADLEY v. CITY OF MEBANE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 2020

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … was clearly established.”

Crawford v. University of North Carolina

440 F. Supp. 1047 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 1, 1977

Therefore the plaintiff was not an otherwise qualified individual. In Duran v. … the agency clearly has jurisdiction and its prior determination will assist the court in making its own decision.

Waller v. Butkovich

593 F. Supp. 942 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 4, 1984

statistical significance is so easily established where samples are of the size of voter registration lists and qualified jury wheels. … QUALIFIED JURY WHEEL A. Qualified Jurors.

MCCARTER v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, THE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 15, 2024

“Qualified immunity protects officials who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Booker v. S.C. … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must establish that (1) the defendant infringed on his constitutional right, and (2) the violated right was “clearly established at the time of the official’s conduct.”

TYLER v. POOLE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 2020

Even if they did have merit, however, Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity because it is not a clearly established constitutional right for an inmate to attend a … merit, Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity because the rights asserted by Plaintiff are not clearly established.

Madey v. Duke University

413 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 31, 2006

In some circumstances, the Government clearly and expressly authorizes and consents to the infringement of a patented invention in the performance of a Government contract. … However, nothing in § 1498 requires a specific percentage of Government funds to qualify as "for the United Slates" or with "authorization and consent" of the Government.

Capital Associated Industries, Inc. v. Cooper

129 F. Supp. 3d 281 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 4, 2015

The facts, I think, are pretty clearly pled. There are not other facts that we think make any difference in this case. … The Fourth Circuit has held that immunity under the Eleventh Amendment does not go to a court’s subject matter jurisdiction; rather, immunity operates like an affirmative defense with the defendant bearing the burden of establishing

MCCARTER v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, THE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2021

“Qualified immunity protects officials who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Booker v. S.C. … To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must allege (1) defendant infringed on his constitutional right, and (2) the violated right was “clearly established at the time of the official’s conduct.” Id. at 538.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. v. Stein

259 F. Supp. 3d 369 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 2, 2017

Defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint on three grounds: Eleventh Amendment State sovereign immunity; 3 standing; and on the merits. 4 (Doc. 30.) … For the reasons set forth below, none establishes standing in Plaintiffs’ case.

Fracaro v. Priddy

514 F. Supp. 191 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 1, 1981

The Board is charged with establishing policies for the programs established by chapter 108 of the General Statutes. N.C.Gen.Stat. § 108-7. … Under those circumstances, the court of appeals held that the good faith immunity defense was established as a matter of law.