Case law

Wilson v. Simmons

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

(3) Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … 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

Kindler v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.

204 N.C. 198 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 22, 1933

The endorsement of the plaintiff was neither special nor restrictive nor qualified, nor conditional. … The principle is clearly set forth in Moffitt v. Maness, 102 N. C., 457 , and has often been restated. Another principle is equally familiar.

North Carolina National Bank v. Barbee

260 N.C. 106 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 19, 1963

In the vast majority of jurisdictions the rule is that merely qualifying as executor or administrator c.t.a. is not sufficient standing alone, to constitute an election to take under the will but is a factor tending to establish … In holding that W was not put to an election, the Court said: “To raise the legal necessity of election, the intent of the donor must clearly appear from the will under recognized rules of construction. . . .

Carolina-Virginia Coastal Highway v. Coastal Turnpike Authority

237 N.C. 52 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 30, 1953

challenged statute and the charter issued thereunder by the Municipal Board'' of Control direct that the governing board so selected shall serve for a period of six years, or until their successors are duly elected and qualified … These recitals are neutralized and stripped of effectiveness by the provisions which expressly immunize the corporation from any kind of governmental visitation or control. The decisions in Webb v.

NELSON v. GUILFORD COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 20, 2024

clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct.” … Said another way, if the allegations show that the officers lacked the required subjective knowledge, then the officers would not have violated clearly established law.

Pritchard v. Williams

175 N.C. 319 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 10, 1918

Pritchard, who was the principal witness to establish the trust, that he qualified as executor of D. L. … in trust, and if not, tbe bias and feeling of tbe witness towards' tbe cause and parties was made to appear clearly by bis further cross-examination.

Riley v. Weyerhaeuser Paper Co.

898 F. Supp. 324 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 5, 1995

The Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently established that he suffers from a disability. Plaintiff next has the burden of establishing that he is otherwise qualified for the position in question. … It does not establish a program of affirmative action favoring employees with handicaps, nor does it establish a policy regarding transfer of disabled individuals.

Carmichael v. Xayavong

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 30, 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

Burney v. . Comrs.

184 N.C. 274 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 1, 1922

Cumberland , 180 N.C. 321 ; and that the second election was clearly authorized by C. S., ch. 95, art. 39. On the other hand, both of these propositions are controverted by the plaintiffs. … of educational work in the district already established.

Elizabeth City Water & Power Co. v. City of Elizabeth City

188 N.C. 278 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 1, 1924

The plaintiff’s complaint, stripped of all technicalities, in a “nutshell,” is that the defendant, the city of Elizabeth City, is about to start a rival business by establishing a water system, etc., and as a consequence … It was clearly possible and, in fact, easy for plaintiff to set forth, by proper incorporation or specific reference, those records or documents which constitute the official action granting, creating, impairing or violating

Hendon v. Hayes

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

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

KHAN v. UNC HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 24, 2021

Sterilizer Co., 126 F.3d 494, 502 (3d Cir. 1997) (“Unlike a plaintiff in an ADA discrimination case, a plaintiff in an ADA retaliation case need not establish that he is a ‘qualified individual with a disability.’ … Khan’s allegations therefore clearly satisfy the first two elements of a retaliation claim.

In re Robertson

7 N.C. App. 186 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 4, 1970

Such a contract, if made, was clearly void. … The fact that the office of justice of the peace no longer exists in Forsyth County furnishes respondent no immunity from public review of his official actions while he held that office.

In re Commissioners of Circuit Court

65 F. 314 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western North Carolina · Dec 29, 1894

That frequent examinations of the written proceedings of many of the commissioners, returned to court, have clearly shown that they are too eager to make tier diems and fees, and are otherwise not qualified to discharge. … observed in every enlightened system of jurisprudence — that renders judges of courts of general and superior jurisdiction exempt from liability to civil actions and indictments for their judicial acts, and affords the same immunity

State v. Helms

348 N.C. 578 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 9, 1998

He contended that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence the results of a horizontal gaze nystagmus (HGN) test without the establishment of a proper foundation. … The evidence presented at trial was clearly sufficient to send the case to the jury and to support a jury finding of guilty of driving while impaired. However, that is not the question before us.

State v. Cuthrell

233 N.C. 274 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 28, 1951

A plea of not guilty to a criminal charge puts in issue every fact necessary to establish the guilt of the accused. S. v. Meyers, 190 N.C. 239 , 129 S.E. 600 ; S. v. Hardy, 189 N.C. 799 , 128 S.E. 152 . … The statement of Sheriff Stevens, who visited the premises subsequent to the fire, that in his opinion the building was “set afire” is clearly incompetent. This is not a case for opinion evidence.

State v. Ellis

243 N.C. 142 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 23, 1955

Among these, the rule which regulates the admission of testimony, offered to impeach the character of a witness, is now so well established and so clearly defined, that a departure from it must be regarded as a violation … shall have first qualified himself by stating that he knows the general reputation of the person in question.”

Sabine v. . Gill, Comr. of Revenue

229 N.C. 599 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 15, 1948

But it is not favored; and there is authority that statutes should be so construed as to avoid it when the intent is not clearly expressed. 51 Am. Jur., Taxation, sec. 286, and cases cited. … In this instance had the Legislature so intended they might have immunized those in like situation with the plaintiff by exempting all income derived from a foreign established business or 'investment taxable at its situs

Robey v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 30, 2024

McGraw, 125 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 1997) (declining to consider qualified immunity defense not squarely before the district court and noting “we have refused to consider sua sponte a defense of qualified immunity in … defense of governmental immunity is clearly not applicable or for which, after the defenses is [sic] asserted, a court of competent jurisdiction determines the defense of governmental immunity not to be applicable

PATTERSON v. STANLY COUNTY DETENTION CENTER

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 2, 2024

] conduct was clearly established at the time.” … That unreasonable response theory cannot survive summary judgment because, under the legal standard applicable at the time of these events (i.e., the clearly established law for purposes of the qualified