Case law

McClary v. Dixie

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 2, 2021

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably … “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

Hannon

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 6, 2026

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe … was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Voswinkel v. City of Charlotte

495 F. Supp. 588 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 19, 1980

, must reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose, . second, must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, . and, third, must avoid excessive government entanglement with religion. . . . ” Committee … Our cases simply do not support the notion that a law found to have a ‘primary’ effect to promote some legitimate end under the State’s police power is immune from further examination to ascertain whether it also has the

Lyda v. Griffin

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

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably … “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

Kelly v. Solomon

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 15, 2020

they did not violate any clearly established right … (7) Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that qualified immunity shields them from damages in their individual capacities because Plaintiff has not established a clearly

Doe v. The University of North Carolina System

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 10, 2024

In so moving, the Defendants asserted the defenses of Eleventh Amendment immunity, sovereign immunity, and qualified immunity with respect to the Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims and state law claims. [See Docs. 32, 34]. … Amendment immunity, and qualified immunity, concluding that the Defendants had not established 2 that they are entitled to such immunities at this stage

Marbury v. Wilerby

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 2, 2021

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably … “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

Murdock v. Ingram

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 1, 2021

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably … “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

Mauney v. Burke County Sheriff's Office

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 17, 2021

“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v. … “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

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

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 20, 2021

and qualified immunity against Plaintiff’s claims. … Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably

Shaw

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 9, 2026

“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v. … Here, the Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the Plaintiff’s right to be free of being detained for involuntary commitment under these facts was not clearly established.

Williams v. Kizer

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 14, 2021

“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v. … was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Cain v. Osborne

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 18, 2025

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their … “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

Valdez-Bey v. Castalone

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 3, 2022

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably … “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

Shine v. The City of Asheville

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 20, 2022

Qualified immunity shields police officers in their individual capacities from liability unless their conduct constitutes a violation of clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In determining whether the officer at issue is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must (1) identify the specific right violated; (2) determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

MciLwain v. Hensley

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 22, 2025

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their … “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

United States v. Appelbaum

47 F. Supp. 3d 370 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 19, 2014

Congress need not use magic words to speak clearly. Id. … “Congress retained the United States’ sovereign immunity for any claim in respect of the assessment or collection of taxes.

Fuller v. Sheppard

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 25, 2023

DISCUSSION “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably … “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

Hyde-El v. Nethken

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 19, 2022

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably … “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

Swanson v. Medical Action Industries, Inc.

343 F. Supp. 2d 496 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 23, 2004

To establish a prima facie case under the ADA, Plaintiff must show (1) that he has a disability; (2) that he is a “qualified individual” for the employment in question; and (3) that he was discharged because of his disability … The Court notes, as well, that the Plaintiff did not show he was a qualified person for the job because his testimony in this litigation established that he could not perform the essential functions of the job as it existed