Case law

Mackins

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 2, 2026

immunity to engage in conduct which does not violate clearly established constitutional rights. … “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.”

North Carolina Ex Rel. Cooper v. Tennessee Valley Authority

439 F. Supp. 2d 486 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 21, 2006

Consequently, TVA has failed to establish its entitlement, pursuant to the Loeffler-Burr mode of analysis, to an implied limitation of its otherwise broad waiver of sovereign immunity on the basis of grave interference with … TVA has failed to clearly establish any of the three bases for recognizing an implied limitation on the TVA Act’s otherwise broad waiver of sovereign immunity. “ ‘In the absence of such showing, it must be presumed that when

Clegg

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 29, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that 2 Even if the Court assumes that Clegg didn’t know his license was … The Fourth Circuit has stated: The basic rules of § 1983 [qualified] immunity are well known.

Calliste v. The City of Charlotte, North Carolina

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 28, 2023

in the qualified immunity inquiry is whether that right was “clearly established” when Defendant allegedly violated it. … If both prongs are met—i.e., the officer violated a clearly established constitutional right—then the court will not extend qualified immunity.

Rohrer v. City of Gastonia

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 28, 2025

To overcome qualified immunity, a plaintiff must show “(1) that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right, and (2) that the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … The Defendants object, arguing the M&R fails to adequately address the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis: whether the allegedly violated right was clearly established. ECF No. 27 at 14–15.

Harmon v. Buchanan

164 F. Supp. 2d 649 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 21, 2001

Leonhardt, 46 F.3d 1130 (table case), 1995 WL 26696 (4th Cir.1995), the Court of Appeals held that, regardless of plaintiffs version of events, a qualified-immunity inquiry (which is identical to the substantive analysis … Plaintiff argues that there are various issues of disputed fact in this case that foreclose summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. ‡ sfs :fi ‡ t¡s Plaintiffs contentions misconceive the law of qualified immunity.

Helton v. Good

208 F. Supp. 2d 597 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 5, 2002

These include sovereign immunity, the Eleventh Amendment to the United States Constitution, qualified immunity, and absolute prosecutorial immunity. These arguments miss the mark. … This qualifies as a “costly, self-executing compliance burden.” Thus, the Plaintiff has established a case of actual controversy and has standing to bring this action.

Argonaut Great Central Insurance v. McDowell County

626 F. Supp. 2d 554 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 20, 2009

Clearly, counsel for plaintiff would not do such things. … Not only is the state court uniquely qualified to determine the issue presented herein, it has already laid the groundwork for decision making inasmuch as it has heard the extensive evidence presented at trial. *566 The natural

Lanier v. Burns

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 29, 2023

qualified immunity. … “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.

Robertson v. Huffman

144 F. Supp. 2d 447 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 23, 2001

Although the Eleventh Amendment, by its terms, applies only to suits brought against a state by “Citizens of another *452 State,” it is well established that “an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal … It is well-established that Congress did not abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity when it created a private right of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

Fair v. Stevens

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 8, 2020

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably … Defendant Stephens argues that he should be granted qualified immunity because he did not violate any of Plaintiff’s clearly established rights.

Calliste v. The City of Charlotte, North Carolina

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 29, 2024

But public official immunity is unavailable “to officers who violate clearly established rights.” Bailey v. Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731, 742 (4th Cir. 2003). … right, was thus not insulated by qualified immunity, and a fortiori not entitled to public official immunity.

Hall v. Pruitt

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 22, 2020

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably … The Defendants argues that they should be granted qualified immunity because they did not violate any of Plaintiff’s clearly established rights.

Robinson v. Montgomery Ward & Co.

644 F. Supp. 890 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 26, 1986

The Plaintiff’s claim was that the acts of the Defendant had the effect of depriving her of the rights, privileges and immunities guaranteed to her by the Constitution and laws of the United States because of race, prohibited … CONCLUSIONS OF LAW (1) The Court has jurisdiction of this action pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 and Title 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and 2000e-2(a). (2) The Plaintiff has the initial burden of establishing a prima facie

Belton v. City of Charlotte

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 26, 2023

Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … However, the state law defense of public official immunity “is unavailable to officers who violate clearly established rights.” Bailey v.

Millsaps v. Iredell County District Attorney's Office

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 11, 2025

Qualified Immunity Also, even if the Court had found that Hillard lacked probable cause for Plaintiff’s arrest (which he did not), it would find that Hillard has qualified immunity … “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Knibbs v.

Houck & Sons, Inc. v. Transylvania County

852 F. Supp. 442 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 18, 1993

Contrary to the assertions in its response, North Carolina case law conclusively establishes that plaintiff carries the burden of establishing that defendants have waived their governmental immunity by purchasing insurance … Thus, plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of establishing a waiver of defendants’ governmental immunity, and all three defendants are therefore entitled to governmental immunity from plaintiffs tortious interference with

Greene v. Lassiter

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 28, 2025

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe … Nonetheless, Coward issued from a district court in another jurisdiction and thus did not clearly establish any right for qualified immunity purposes.

Williams v. City of Charlotte

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 31, 2024

Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages so long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Walker v. … protected right was clearly established by way of the Defendants’ failure to properly train its officers resulting in numerous police chases ending in injury.

Joiner v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

114 F. Supp. 2d 400 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 25, 2000

Unsupported allegations “do not confer talismanic immunity from Rule 56.” Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355, 365 (4th Cir.1985). … A "heightened pleading standard” appears to be reserved for situations such as pleading fraud or protection of constitutional protections, such as qualified immunity. Dunbar Corp. v.