Case law

In re Appeal of Valley Proteins, Inc.

128 N.C. App. 151 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 16, 1997

We discern the purpose of G.S. § 105-282.1 to be to establish a uniform method of informing a county of a property owner’s intent to claim a tax exemption. … The County was clearly aware of taxpayer’s intent and received all of the relevant information it needed.

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

Klos Constr., Inc. v. Premier Homes & Props., LLC

2020 NCBC 53 · North Carolina Business Court · Jul 21, 2020

A non-outsider enjoys qualified immunity from liability on a tortious interference claim. Combs v. City Elec. Supply Co., 203 N.C. App. 75, 84, 690 S.E.2d 719, 725 (2010). … A non-outsider loses this qualified immunity if the non-outsider acts with “legal malice.” Varner v. Bryan, 113 N.C. App. 697, 702, 440 S.E.2d 295, 298 (1994).

Oxendine v. Hunt

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 16, 2024

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for statutory or constitutional violations so long as they can reasonably believe that their conduct does not violate clearly established law. Harlow v. … A court employs a two-step procedure for determining whether qualified immunity applies that “asks first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.”

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

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

Bailey v. State

348 N.C. 130 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 8, 1998

The Court went on to explain that “[g]overnmental immunity is not a defense .... … Such a result would clearly elevate form over substance.

Kelly v. Solomon

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 15, 2020

they did not violate any clearly established right … (7) Qualified Immunity Defendants argue that qualified immunity shields them from damages in their individual capacities because Plaintiff has not established a clearly

Bishop v. Funderburk

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 6, 2022

that the judicial Defendants also enjoy qualified immunity. … In any event, qualified immunity certainly applies here, as there is no clearly established federal law requiring disclosure of judicial votes on non-merits orders. 17

Smith v. Hill

285 F. Supp. 556 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 11, 1968

Dunn, North Carolina Vagrancy Ordinance, Chapter H, Article I, Section 2, is vague and overly broad, restrains freedom of movement, subjects persons to arrest and detention on suspicion, in effect requires a suspect to establish … support are deemed sufficient to satisfy the current unexpressed, unexpressable official standards for mandatory affluence. 11 A man’s mere property status, without more, cannot be used by a State [or a municipality] to test, qualify

Fann v. . R. R.

155 N.C. 136 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 3, 1911

R. , 140 N.C. 252 , applying the general rule contained in the fourth clause, it was held, among other things: "Negligence having first been established, facts and attendant circumstances may so qualify the obligation to … There was nothing here to qualify his obligation to care for his own safety, and recovery was denied. In Mitchell v. R.

Marbury v. Wilerby

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 2, 2021

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

Miller v. Peterson

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 15, 2024

“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.”

PERRY v. GUILL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 22, 2024

Qualified Immunity Generally, under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a corrections officer who “has violated a prisoner’s constitutional right” is “shielded from liability … . . . if an objectively reasonable officer could have believed that his actions were lawful in light of clearly established law.”

Sisk v. Holden

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 29, 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

Matter of Hernandez

46 N.C. App. 265 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 15, 1980

It is not intended to be used indiscriminately and clearly defines the limited time and circumstances for such use. … Such facts must be sufficient to establish to the affiant’s satisfaction that the patient is imminently dangerous to himself or others.

DARDEN v. COOPER

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 14, 2020

In order to overcome a defense of qualified immunity, it must be shown that (1) the facts alleged or shown by the plaintiff made out a violation of a constitutional right, and (2) the right was “clearly established … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 232–33 (1991) (dismissing on the basis of qualified immunity).

Harrington-Wall v. City of Monroe, NC

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 20, 2020

Qualified Immunity Because probable cause exists, Plaintiff cannot establish a Fourth Amendment violation. See Quarles v. Weeks, 815 Fed. … Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability in a § 1983 suit as long as their conduct has not violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

JONES v. ALVAREZ

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 2, 2021

Qualified Immunity for Johnson’s Seizure of the License Defendants argue Johnson is entitled to qualified immunity as to the third interaction … And in the absence of a constitutional violation, qualified immunity applies and the court need not address whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established

Moore v. Church

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