Case law

Hobbs v. County of Moore

267 N.C. 665 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 6, 1966

It is also well established that this Court will not adjudge an act of the General Assembly unconstitutional unless it is clearly so. Kornegay v. Goldsboro, 180 N.C. 441 , 105 S.E. 187 . … The three areas established by the present statute are not “school districts.” The statute declares that these areas are “for the purpose of representation on the Boards of Education.”

Horne v. Marvin L. Goodson Logging Co.

83 N.C. App. 96 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 21, 1986

Robert Wilfong, qualified as an expert in neurosurgery, testified that plaintiffs neurological examination was normal and that there was no permanent disability to the brain. … It reasonably could be argued that the Deputy Commissioner clearly considered this testimony, found it to be incredible, and simply chose not to believe it. However, since it was error to characterize Dr.

COVINGTON v. BROWN

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 31, 2025

Qualified Immunity Defendants allege that they are protected by qualified immunity from Plaintiffs individual capacity claims. (Defs.’ Br. at 8-10.) … Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil liability unless “the official violated a statutory or constitutional right” and “the tight was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.”

Crump v. Carver

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 7, 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

In re Briggs

135 N.C. 118 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 19, 1904

This is clearly recognized in the cases of State v. Blalock, 61 N. C., 242 , and State v. Keith, 63 N. C., 140 . … No phrases or words of any provision, securing such rights or privileges to the citizen, in the Constitution are to be qualified, limited or frittered away.

RHOADS v. GUILFORD COUNTY NORTH CAROLINA

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 27, 2024

“Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged … illegal conduct, let alone a violation of “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

McKenzie v. City of High Point

61 N.C. App. 393 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 5, 1983

Third, as the record clearly shows, there was no appeal from the enactment of the earlier ordinance and petitioners’ attempted attack in this appeal is collateral in nature. 1 The evidence before Judge Wood clearly established … We hold that under the foregoing statute, any number of separate qualifying areas may be annexed in a single ordinance.

Bochkis v. Med. Justice Servs., Inc.

2016 NCBC 89 · North Carolina Business Court · Nov 23, 2016

Although the Court concludes that Defendant is not immune from civil liability under N.C. Gen. … As to the Motion to Strike, the Court concludes in its discretion that none of the allegations in the Complaint that Defendant seeks to have stricken are clearly irrelevant or improper.

Boyd v. . Leatherwood

165 N.C. 614 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 27, 1914

It is evident that the court ruled them out because the witness had not qualified himself to answer them. At any rate, there is no finding that he was so qualified. … It does not appear clearly that it was. He was only asked, "Is that a (618) genuine signature?" without any indication to us of what signature was meant.

Goodwin v. Town of Reidsville

160 N.C. 411 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 13, 1912

The distinction between the two classes of powers is set forth very clearly in many adjudicated cases, as well as by text-writers, and the exemption of the municipality from liability in the one case and its liability in … the other for an injury resulting 'from negligence firmly established.

Fourth National Bank v. Wilson

168 N.C. 557 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 7, 1915

.;' and in the absence of such qualifying testimony the law will presume that such person signed his name as comaker, and in any event as surety, that being the relationship of the defendant alleged in the complaint.” … As we have seen, tbe verdict on tbe fourth issue has become immaterial, since tbe jury, in response to tbe fifth issue, has established notice sufficient to fix and bold defendant as indorser; and there is nothing to show

Sechrist v. Board of Commissioners

181 N.C. 511 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 7, 1921

At an election held in High Point Township on 18 January, 1921, a majority of the qualified voters of said township voted in favor of the issuance of said bonds and the levying of said taxes, as provided in said chapter 9 … The Legislature has attempted to do something which is clearly forbidden by the Constitution, and which, therefore, is beyond its authority.

Snuggs v. STANLY CTY. DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH

303 S.E.2d 646 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 5, 1983

It is well established that State courts have concurrent general subject matter jurisdiction to hear Section 1983 claims. In Martinez v. … Presnell , a remarkably analogous case, clearly holds to the long-established North Carolina rule that "where the legislature has provided by statute an effective administrative remedy, that remedy is exclusive and its relief

Cook v. Town of Davidson

534 F. Supp. 808 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 30, 1982

Mayor MacCormac further moves individually for summary judgment, alleging that she has qualified immunity from suits against her for actions performed as part of her official duties as mayor. *810 The plaintiff has filed … Moreover, even if the notice to the Commission was made public, there is clearly no “stigmatizing” statement in the report.

Wilson v. Thomas

43 F. Supp. 3d 628 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 20, 2014

Defendants argue that the individual plaintiffs have not established standing because they have not established the existence of a redressable injury. … This is clearly relief that does not require the participation of any individuals.

Madison Cablevision, Inc. v. City of Morganton

325 N.C. 634 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 7, 1989

Ed. 315 (1943), which held that an agricultural marketing program established by California was immune from scrutiny under the federal antitrust laws. … The Court reasoned that the statutes clearly contemplate that a city may engage in anticompetitive conduct.

Streeter v. Harris

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 12, 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

Froneberger v. Yadkin County Schools

630 F. Supp. 291 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 13, 1986

time plaintiff applied, he was suffering from a mental disability rendering it impossible for plaintiff to establish he was qualified for the teaching position. … Thus, plaintiff by his own pleadings has established that he was not qualified for the position for which he applied with Yadkin. Therefore, defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Briley v. Farabow

348 N.C. 537 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 9, 1998

Gatewood’s report failed to establish that he qualified as an expert. Defendants thus asked the court to sustain their objection and exclude Ms. Briley’s affidavit and Dr. Gatewood’s report. … Young’s unexcused negligence, rather than to any mistake,” was clearly based on competent evidence.

Stern v. . Lee

115 N.C. 426 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1894

homestead privileges and immunities therein. … Graham , 110 N.C. 374 , the Justice who delivered the opinion, combatting the rule established by Adrian v.