Case law

BURROUGHS v. THE COUNTY OF ROCKINGHAM

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 28, 2019

To that end, qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge of … There remains the question of whether Officer Martin is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity from suit because “the law did not put [him] on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful.”

State v. English

95 N.C. App. 611 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 19, 1989

Such testimony was clearly instructive to the jury. We find no error in its admission. Finally, defendant assigns as error the admission of evidence of an earlier fire in another house. … Such an inference clearly cannot be supported absent a demonstrable nexus between the defendant and the act sought to be introduced against him. No such nexus is present here.

Fletcher v. . Comrs. of Buncombe

218 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 19, 1940

The act itself deals only with the mechanics of establishing or changing the lines of school districts or special bond tax units, and does not, ex proprio vigore , undertake to establish or to change any such lines. … A proper construction of these statutes must reconcile them under this rule, which is so clearly expressed in Felmet v. Comrs. , 186 N.C. 251 , 119 S.E. 353 .

Monds v. Bennett

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 15, 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.”

Faison v. Commissioners

171 N.C. 411 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 3, 1916

Tbe first position taken by tbe plaintiffs is tbat tbe election beld under tbe act of 1915 is of no effect, as a majority of tbe qualified voters did not cast their- votes “against stock law” in tbe county. … Tbe establishment of a separate taxing district for local purposes does not exempt its inhabitants from any charges for tbe general public good, as, for example, tbe creation of a school district in order to confer special

State v. Essick

67 N.C. App. 697 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 17, 1984

While defendants urge that the dismissal of the charges upon a finding of no probable cause is the equivalent of an acquittal, it clearly is not. … Further, Melton’s plea of no contest to lesser related charges clearly does not serve as a judgment of acquittal to the conspiracy charges.

Banks v. Jefferson-Smurfit

176 F. Supp. 2d 499 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 18, 2001

Plaintiff has established that he is a member of a protected class, that he was qualified for the position of sheeter, and that he was discharged. … Defendant disciplined Plaintiff for violating a clearly-established plant rule, just as it had done for other employees in the past.

Mayweather v. Guice

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 6, 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 … clearly established violation of law.

Borden, Inc. v. Wade

21 N.C. App. 205 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 3, 1974

The opinions as to the fair value of the property contained in the documents filed by plaintiffs were not sufficient to establish the fair value as a matter of law and thereby remove that question from consideration by the … We are aware of cases from other jurisdictions holding that uncontra-dicted and unimpeached testimonial evidence from qualified witnesses is sufficient to support summary judgment, even in favor of the party with the burden

BELTON v. FIELDS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 18, 2025

Even if they are material, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on this claim. … Even if a reasonable jury could conclude that the use of the smock was excessive under the circumstances, the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, because the constitutional right at issue was not “clearly established

McClary v. Downey

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 28, 2020

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

John R. Sexton & Co. v. Justus

116 N.C. App. 293 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 6, 1994

Thus, neither the statute nor the relevant caselaw established a rule requiring registration of concentrates before exemption. … Even so, we do not believe that this rule requires the taxpayer to divine a requirement not clearly stated.

Jones v. Haire

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 27, 2022

“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.”

Teasley v. O'Neal

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 23, 2023

In assessing qualified immunity, courts employ a two-part test that “asks first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.” Melgar v. … Plaintiff's amended complaint does not allege a clearly established right which defendants violated.

Miller v. Carolina Coast Emergency Physicians, LLC

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 19, 2022

¶ 17 This argument is untenable in light of the precedent we established in Preston. … Thus, as Harnett Health implicitly concedes, the record establishes that Dr.

Trent v. Baers

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 6, 2023

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

Riddle v. . Cumberland

180 N.C. 321 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 10, 1920

It was merely a convenient form of ballot designated to express the will of the qualified voters upon the question submitted to them, and the ballots used by them and the surrounding circumstances show clearly and unmistakably … The entire township was to be established as a single school district, and the vote was to be taken accordingly.

State Ex Rel. Bunting v. Gales

77 N.C. 283 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1877

Clearly any other rule- would subordinate the public welfare to the interest of the officer. He takes subject to the power of the Legislature to change his duties and emoluments as the public good may require. … When the present plaintiff qualified as Clerk, the Constitution of 1868 was in force, and by § 19 of Art IY, the General Assembly was required to provide for the establishment of Special Courts for the trial of misdemeanors

Evans v. Freeman.

142 N.C. 61 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 18, 1906

In Clark on Contracts (2 Ed.), at p. 85, tbe principle is thus clearly and concisely stated: “Where a contract does not fall within tbe statute tbe parties may at tbeir option put' tbeir agreement in writing, . or may contract … A qualified endorsement may, by the express terms of that section, be made by adding to the endorser’s signature the words “without recourse,” or any words of similar import.

Weinraub v. United States

927 F. Supp. 2d 258 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 13, 2012

See 49 U.S.C. § 44901 (requiring the screening of all passengers and property); § 44902 (requiring passengers to consent to a search to establish whether a passenger is carrying, or the property of a passenger contains, a … Plaintiff also contends that the court in Welch was “clearly wrong” in excluding screeners from the scope of the law enforcement proviso because screeners do not both perform searches and have the authority to arrest, Pi’