Case law

Russ v. United States

129 F. Supp. 2d 905 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 17, 2001

The FTCA provides certain express exclusions from the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity. … Both of these cases involve plaintiffs’ purchase of homes, clearly economic affairs.

RPR & Associates v. O'Brien/Atkins Associates, P.A.

24 F. Supp. 2d 515 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 3, 1998

Where the defendant has an interest in the subject matter of the contract, he enjoys a qualified immunity for actions taken in furtherance of that interest. Id. … To defeat a non-outsider’s qualified immunity, Plaintiff must produce evidence showing that Defendant acted with legal malice, Varner, 113 N.C.App. at 702 , 440 S.E.2d at 298 , meaning that Defendant exceeded his legal right

Fowler v. Alexander

340 F. Supp. 168 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 22, 1972

An entirely adequate remedy is clearly available in the General Court of Justice. … The doctrine established by the late Mr.

M.B. v. CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 27, 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 her constitutional right, and (2) the violated right was “clearly established at the time of the official’s conduct.”

PORTER

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 15, 2026

City of Charlotte, 80 F.4th 264, “the clearly established right must be 284-85 (4th Cir. 2023)). … That right, even assuming Scott violated Porter’s however, is clearly established. right, that right was not clearly established on August 17, 2022.

Housecalls Home Health Care, Inc. v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

515 F. Supp. 2d 616 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 23, 2007

This statute quite clearly does not operate as a waiver of sovereign immunity as to certain of Plaintiffs’ claims. … They have not requested relief that can be granted and have not met their burden in establishing a waiver of sovereign immunity under the APA as to the claims that they do raise against the Federal Defendants.

Lund v. Rowan County

103 F. Supp. 3d 712 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 4, 2015

Berkley , however, clearly explains how Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit precedent soundly establish that legislative immunity does not apply to municipalities. … immunity and (2) regardless, legislative prayer is not a legitimate legislative activity protected by legislative immunity).

Berry v. Odom

222 F. Supp. 467 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 15, 1963

The primary pui’pose of the institution at that time was to train qualified personnel to teach in public schools of North Carolina. In 1858 the name was again changed to Trinity College. … There was no ruling on the claim of immunity asserted by Duke University.

Disher v. Weaver

308 F. Supp. 2d 614 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 26, 2004

However, qualified immunity is only applicable when the actions taken were objectively reasonable “in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time.” Anderson v. … For that reason, qualified immunity does not apply or entitle the individual Defendants to a grant of summary judgment.

ATKINSON v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION

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

Discovery and further proceedings may establish that qualified immunity applies. … In addition, the allegations in the complaint are not sufficient to establish the defense of qualified immunity.

Simmons v. Corizon Health, Inc.

122 F. Supp. 3d 255 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 4, 2015

In Beckles-Palomares , the North Carolina Court of Appeals applied established law that N.C. GemStat. § 160A-296 waives the governmental immunity doctrine. 688 S.E.2d at 242-43 . … Gen.Stat. § 153A-225 — establishes a waiver of governmental immunity. See Meyer v.

MACK

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 18, 2026

However, “[t]he 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 analyzing qualified immunity, the Court must consider (1) “whether a constitutional violation occurred,” and (2) “whether the right violated was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Hooper v. North Carolina

379 F. Supp. 2d 804 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 13, 2005

A State may consent to suit in its own courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Smith v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 436 , 20 S.Ct. 919 , 44 L.Ed. 1140 (1900). NCCU qualifies as a state institution. See N.C. … The general reference to federal wiretapping law does not clearly evidence an intent to waive the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts.

Action NC v. Strach

216 F. Supp. 3d 597 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 27, 2016

In addition, Strach asserts Eleventh Amendment immunity. (ECF No. 29 at 15-17.) … Eleventh Amendment Immunity Both Defendant Strach and the Agency Defendants assert Eleventh Amendment immunity, which bars suits by citizens against their own states. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.

RICHARDSON-BEY v. SHELTON

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 13, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability and suit insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … 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

TYLER v. LOCKLEAR

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 1, 2022

Thus, the traditional two-step qualified immunity inquity requites 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 … “An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct

DIAMOND v. ODEDERE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 9, 2024

Since “qualified immunity is designed to shield officers not only from liability but from the burdens of litigation, its establishment at the pleading or summary judgment stage has been specifically encouraged.” … Nowhere in his Answer does Defendant explicitly state the phrase ‘qualified immunity’ let alone the words immunity. See Sales v.

LEWIS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 28, 2026

Qualified immunity shields the establishing the absence of a genuine defendants from the eight-hour dispute of material fact by property seizure claim. … “The F.4th 498, 505 (4th Cir. 2024) doctrine of qualified immunity (quoting Ewards v.

COLEMAN v. MAUNEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 28, 2025

He further asserts that “Plaintiffs can point to no case law that [he] violated any clearly established law” and that he “is entitled to qualified immunity as a result.” [Id. at 7–8]. … Qualified Immunity Had Plaintiffs provided the necessary allegations, Defendant Revis would still be entitled to qualified immunity.

MCCLAIN v. CAUSEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 1, 2021

This is particularly so because government actors, like the defendants here, are entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established constitutional rights. … It is enough to say that the law is not clearly established as to Mr.