Case law

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

Simmons v. Justice

87 F. Supp. 2d 524 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 25, 2000

Law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages, but only to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … immunity analysis, the Court must determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the incident.

Layman v. Alexander

294 F. Supp. 2d 784 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 21, 2003

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 statutory … If, however, the facts viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff do establish such a violation, the court must determine whether the right was clearly established such that a reasonable official would have known

Braswell v. Haywood Regional Medical Center

352 F. Supp. 2d 639 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 14, 2005

Qualified Immunity In the alternative, Defendant asserts it is entitled to qualified immunity. While § 1983 “on its face admits of no immunities^] ... … Qualified Immunity under the HCQIA While the Court has determined that the HCQIA qualified immunity is not applicable to Plaintiffs § 1983 claims, it still may be available to the Defendants against the Plaintiffs state law

Penland v. Long

922 F. Supp. 1085 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 26, 1996

Qualified Immunity. … Immunity may thus be established either on the basis that the right allegedly (or actually) violated was not at the time one “clearly established,” or that, though “clearly established” (and violated), it was one that a “

Carter v. Good

951 F. Supp. 1235 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 7, 1996

Government officials sued in their individual capacity are protected by qualified immunity as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … To rule,on qualified immunity, the Court must identify the right violated and determine whether the right was clearly established at the time it was violated. Id., at 795; see also, Pritchett v.

Kling v. Harris Teeter Inc.

338 F. Supp. 2d 667 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 21, 2002

Qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability under § 1983 “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … The purpose of qualified immunity is “to remove most civil liability actions, except those where the official clearly broke the law, from the legal process well in advance of the submission of the facts to. a jury.”

Suarez v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools

123 F. Supp. 2d 883 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 4, 2000

The plaintiff in such a case must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on national origin, specifically by showing: (1) that [he] is a member of a protected class; (2) that [he] was qualified for his … Nevertheless, Plaintiff clearly has not established the required causal nexus to any adverse employment action to establish a prima facie case of retaliation. Plaintiff alleges two instances of retaliation.

Smith v. Walker

845 F. Supp. 2d 673 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 28, 2012

Defendants also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity, as Plaintiff has not shown a violation of clearly established law. … immunity.

Jones v. Buchanan

164 F. Supp. 2d 734 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 21, 2001

Inasmuch as the qualified-immunity analysis makes such disputes immaterial (for the reasons discussed infra), summary judgment is appropriate because no genuine issues of material fact remain for trial. … Plaintiff argues that there are various issues of disputed fact in this case that foreclose summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. Hi * * * * Plaintiffs contentions misconceive the law of qualified immunity.

Bear v. Wydra

48 F. Supp. 2d 516 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 11, 1999

Even if this Court were to find that Plaintiffs’ constitutional claims could be brought against Defendants as individuals, qualified immunity would bar such claims. … The Court previously addressed the issue of qualified immunity in its Order filed 26 March 1998.

Tarantino v. North Carolina

639 F. Supp. 661 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 9, 1986

Fitzgerald, Mitchell is immune unless his actions violated clearly established law. Mitchell , 472 U.S. at -, 105 S.Ct. at 2808 . … Since the law was not clearly established at the time of Mitchell’s act, the Court ruled that Mitchell was entitled to summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity. Baker urges that he is entitled to the same.

Hoke v. BD. OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS OF STATE OF NC

445 F. Supp. 1313 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 23, 1978

Assuming, but not deciding, that Anderson's investigative activities would be subject to a qualified immunity only, there is a question whether the individual Board members should be held liable under the principle of respondeat … While it does not appear that Paris would be entitled to the protection of any absolute or qualified immunity, a review of the record also leaves the court unclear as to just what Paris' involvement is alleged to have been

Galeas v. Inpold

845 F. Supp. 2d 685 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 28, 2012

Defendant also contends that she is entitled to qualified immunity. … Because the Court finds that there was no constitutional violation in the first instance, the Court need not address Defendant's qualified immunity argument. ’

Hoke v. Board of Medical Examiners

445 F. Supp. 1313 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 23, 1978

Assuming, but not deciding, that Anderson’s investigative activities would be subject to a qualified immunity only, there is a question whether the individual Board members should be held liable under the principle of respondeat … While it does not appear that Paris would be entitled to the protection of any absolute or qualified immunity, a review of the record also leaves the court unclear as to just what Paris’ involvement is alleged to have been

Crowder

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

“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. … The law is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, or the highest court of the state where the case arose. Wilson v.

Carawan v. Mitchell

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 14, 2019

To find a right is clearly established does not mean that “the exact conduct at issue [must] have been held unlawful for the law governing an officer’s actions to be clearly established.” Amaechi v. … 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

Johnson v. North Carolina

905 F. Supp. 2d 712 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 17, 2012

This court, therefore, will evaluate Defendants’ sovereign immunity *720 defenses pursuant to the framework established in Rule 12(b)(1). III. Analysis A. Federal Claims 1. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a. … To establish a prima facie case under Section 510, a plaintiff must show “(1) that he is a member of the protected class, i.e., a participant in an employee benefit plan; (2) that he was qualified for the job; and (3) that

Gunn v. Padgett

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 27, 2023

The second prong of the qualified immunity inquiry—whether the constitutional right violated was “clearly established”—is easier for Trooper Padgett to satisfy. … Whether Defendant Padgett is entitled to qualified immunity depends on the level of generality at which Plaintiff’s clearly established Fourth Amendment rights are defined.

Suhre v. Board of Commissioners

894 F. Supp. 927 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 28, 1995

The wording thereof is clearly visible. … However, “[w]hen local zoning officials do more than adopt prospective, legislative-type rules and take the next step into the area of enforcement, they can claim only the executive qualified immunity appropriate to that