Case law

Word of Faith Fellowship, Inc. v. Rutherford County Department of Social Services

329 F. Supp. 2d 675 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 10, 2004

The alleged threats and harassment clearly constitute injuries to Plaintiffs. Therefore, Plaintiffs have properly alleged a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3). D. Qualified immunity. … toward constitutional rights, those rights must be clearly established.

Williams v. Aaron

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 18, 2024

The Defendant argues in the Trial Brief that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established right, and that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by failing … Alford, 973 F.2d 307, 312 (4th Cir. 1992) (the question of whether a right is clearly established is a question of law for the court to decide).

Jasmaine f/k/a Duane L. Fox v. Linsenby

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 13, 2021

“To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the court must examine (1) whether the plaintiff has demonstrated that the officer violated a constitutional right and (2) whether that right was clearly … Dolgos, 884 F.3d 172, 178 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 199 (finding that an inmate’s RLUIPA rights were clearly established in 2002 for qualified immunity purposes).

Griffin v. Mortier

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 13, 2022

Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their … right and (2) ‘whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’”).

Thompson v. Farmer

945 F. Supp. 109 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 28, 1996

Taken together Mitchell and Johnson establish a continuum along which the court makes qualified immunity decisions. … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 , 111 S.Ct. 1789 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity proper where plaintiff’s complaint did not allege a clearly established’ legal norm or its violation).

Harris v. Mack

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 20, 2023

Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their … a constitutional right and (2) ‘whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’ ”).

Hensley v. Suttles

167 F. Supp. 3d 753 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 9, 2016

In response, these Defendants claim they are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … In their summary judgment opening brief, the Defendants make no arguments beyond public official immunity/qualified immunity.

Bell v. Dawson

144 F. Supp. 2d 454 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 20, 2001

As discussed above, government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from *461 liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … [Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, and not merely a defense to liability....

Tillery v. Kalinski

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 23, 2020

To overcome the qualified immunity defense at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must have shown facts that make out a violation of a constitutional right, and the right at issue must have been “clearly established … The right at issue is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes if: [t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official

Hyatt v. Town of Lake Lure

225 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 26, 2002

Defendants argue in their reply brief for the first time that they are also covered by qualified immunity in that they have not violated any clearly established rights. … Qualified Immunity In their reply brief, the Defendants raise for the first time the defense of qualified immunity from suit.

Henderson Amusement, Inc. v. Good

172 F. Supp. 2d 751 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 2, 2001

Even if this officer’s purported conduct had violated a clearly established rule of law (which no one can argue that it did), he would still be entitled to immunity if he reasonably believed his conduct was lawful. … If it is undisputed that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time, the defendant asserting a qualified-immunity defense may still be immune from damages for violation of that right if, under the circumstances

Fares v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service

29 F. Supp. 2d 259 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 27, 1998

Qualified Immunity Individual Defendants argue that, at the very least, they are all shielded from Plaintiffs’ Bivens claims by qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity holds that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Little v. Smith

114 F. Supp. 2d 437 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 17, 2000

Government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … [Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, and not merely a defense to liability....

Helms v. Rafter

853 F. Supp. 897 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 14, 1994

Qualified Immunity Public officials are free from liability for monetary damages if they can plead and prove that their conduct did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … If it is undisputed that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time, the defendant asserting a qualified immunity defense may still be immune from damages for violation of that right if, under the circumstances

Wilkerson v. Thrift

124 F. Supp. 2d 322 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 4, 2000

If it is undisputed that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time, the defendant asserting a qualified-immunity defense may still be immune from damages for violation of that right if, under the circumstances … of qualified immunity.

BLUE RIDGE PUBLIC SAFETY, INC. v. Ashe

712 F. Supp. 2d 440 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 30, 2010

If a potential violation is shown, the next step is to ask whether the right was clearly established. … Qualified immunity is abrogated only when the right that the officer is alleged to have violated was a "clearly established" right at the time of the violation.

Caballero v. Boney

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 28, 2019

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because no constitutional violation occurred and, even if a violation did occur it was not clearly established. … To overcome the qualified immunity defense at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must have shown facts that make out a violation of a constitutional right, and the right at issue must have been “clearly established

Blue Ridge Public Safety, Inc. v. Ashe

712 F. Supp. 2d 440 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 30, 2010

If a potential violation is shown, the next step is to ask whether the right was clearly established. … Qualified immunity is abrogated only when the right that the officer is alleged to have violated was a “clearly established” right at the time of the violation.

Andrews v. Crump

984 F. Supp. 393 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 16, 1996

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY AS TO CONTINUING SEIZURE. (COUNT TWO: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION.) WHETHER THE RIGHT ALLEGEDLY VIOLATED WAS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED. … Qualified immunity should be granted at summary judgment in this case because the law was not clearly established that filing the tax lien was a seizure implicating the Fourth Amendment, and a reasonable, experienced officer

Bradley v. Ramsey

329 F. Supp. 2d 617 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 25, 2004

Qualified immunity. The Woodfin Defendants, without citing a single authority, state that the doctrine of qualified immunity protects them from Plaintiffs state .law claims. Their assertion fails for two reasons. … Second, in the motion before the Court, the Defendants attempt to assert the qualified immunity defense only *626 against Bradley’s state law claims. 4 But qualified immunity does not protect governmental officials against