Case law

North Carolina Electric Membership Corp. v. Carolina Power & Light Co.

780 F. Supp. 322 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 24, 1991

immunity 55 , and the filed-rate doctrine 56 . … Under the doctrine of state action immunity, state regulation can immunize activities otherwise in violation of the antitrust laws if the challenged activities are taken pursuant to a clearly articulated state policy and

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.

Wood v. United States

209 F. Supp. 3d 835 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 21, 2016

The United States enjoys sovereign immunity from suits for damages at common law. Perkins v. United States, 55 F.3d 910, 913 (4th Cir.1995). The FTCA constitutes a limited waiver of this immunity. Id. … Simon to establish that central line dis-lodgment “does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence.” Robinson, 229 N.C.App. at 225 , 747 S.E.2d at 329 .

Gordon v. Forsyth County Hospital Authority, Inc.

409 F. Supp. 708 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 15, 1976

It was simply not reasonable, the court further concluded, to overlook the phrase “or portion thereof” which clearly indicated that the agencies need not require services to be provided throughout the entire facility. … That statute is intended to redress a deprivation of equal protection, *712 or equal privilege and immunities, where there is some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminating animus behind the conspirator

Slate v. Potter

459 F. Supp. 2d 423 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 26, 2006

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant denied his request and discriminated against him by instead giving the opportunity to a younger, less qualified, non-disabled individual. … In cases brought under Title VII, the federal government waives its immunity based on the condition that government employees first exhaust their administrative remedies as defined by the statute and regulations. 42 U.S.C

PAGE

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

Qualified Immunity Defendants assert qualified immunity from Murphy’s claims against them in their individual capacities. … Deciding whether qualified immunity bars a claim 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

Muse v. United States

303 F. Supp. 172 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 22, 1969

Since it is' a statutory mandate that the taxpayer must maintain “as his home” the same household as his dependent sisters, it is defendant’s contention that plaintiff must establish that his sisters’ household, located in … If defendant’s interpretation of the statute is correct, the facts clearly establish that the plaintiff did not live with his sisters in Cameron, but maintained his home in Sanford, North Carolina.

Guilford National Bank v. Southern Railway Co.

24 F.R.D. 493 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 22, 1960

While the plaintiff did not qualify as the administrator of the estate of Jesse M. … There is no merit to the privilege and immunity asserted by the defendant, and no showing of undue prejudice has been made.

Stith v. Barnwell

447 F. Supp. 970 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 1978

While § 1985(2) is clearly inapplicable to the facts of this case, there is some possibility that § 1985(1) or § 1985(3) would apply in this case. … Sections 2000e-16(b) and (c) establish complementary administrative and judicial enforcement mechanisms. In Brown v.

DAVIS v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO

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

Second, a plaintiff can overcome the Eleventh Amendment bar if the State clearly and unambiguously waives sovereign immunity. Pense v. Md. Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr. … This period is too long to establish a temporal connection on its own. See King v.

KING v. LUCUS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 10, 2025

County Defendants assert that qualified immunity bars § 1983 claims against government officials sued in their individual capacities unless the plaintiff alleges a violation of clearly established … They contend that King “failed to allege any specific violation of law, much less any specific violation of clearly established law.” (Id.)

North Carolina State Conference, of the NAACP v. McCrory

156 F. Supp. 3d 683 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 15, 2016

that a broad reading of the exception in favor of the voter is clearly required by the statute, and its plans for implementation of the exception.” … Plaintiffs rely on South Carolina for this proposition, but that case is clearly distinguishable in this respect.

KADEL v. FOLWELL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 5, 2021

qualified 12 immunity grounds relates to the entire action[,] . . . … However, “interlocutory review of a denial of qualified immunity does not automatically confer [appellate] jurisdiction over other issues □□□ case.” Livingston v. Kehagias, 803 F.

Boles v. United States

3 F. Supp. 3d 491 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 26, 2014

The burden of establishing the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction lies with the plaintiff. Id. … John’s Sports Ctr., Inc., 35 Kan.App.2d 809 , 135 P.3d 174, 187 (2006) ("[To recover for negligence per se, plaintiffs] must establish that the statute explicitly or implicitly established a private cause of action.”). .

WOODS v. EDMONDS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 21, 2024

Defendants raise myriad challenges to Woods’s complaint, including standing, the Eleventh Amendment, judicial immunity, qualified immunity, and the applicability of the constitutional right … to this context, is not so clearly established as to avoid immunity.

POUNCEY v. GUILFORD COUNTY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 28, 2021

Defendants seek summary judgment with regard to the sixth claim and their related tenth affirmative defense, qualified immunity. 1. … The question of qualified immunity in discriminatory termination cases has already been squarely addressed by a court in this district.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF SERVICES FOR THE BLIND V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 23, 2019

Ct. 2400, 2408 (2019). 19 Moreover, even assuming that the Regulation qualified as ambiguous, Plaintiff has not established that this purported interpretation reflects the “authoritative … In sum, the arbitrators’ reasoning, which Defendant adopts, does not clearly establish that the challenged “regulations conflict with the statute” (A.R. 1152), and, in any event,

GRADY v. SMITH

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 9, 2023

“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 … A right qualifies as “clearly established” if “it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.” Saucier v.

Jane v. Bowman Gray School of Medicine-North Carolina Baptist Hospital

211 F. Supp. 2d 678 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 2, 2002

Jane has even established a prima facie case. *695 Dr. … or immunities .secured by the Constitution and laws shall be liable.

MCI Constructors, Inc. v. Hazen and Sawyer, Pc

405 F. Supp. 2d 621 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 28, 2005

“The existence of contributory negligence is ordinarily a question for the jury; such an issue is rarely appropriate for summary judgment, and only where the evidence establishes a plaintiffs negligence so clearly that no … In light of these questions, the court will not conclude that the evidence establishes MCI’s negligence clearly. The circumstances are not so exceptional that the issue should not be submitted to a jury.