Case law

Rexham Corporation v. Town of Pineville

26 N.C. App. 349 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 2, 1975

Since the Town Council clearly had the statutory authority to amend its ordinance upon remand without increasing the area to be annexed, it is of no legal significance here whether Judge Ervin misinterpreted the order of … More importantly, however, we note that petitioner in the case at bar is a corporation and therefore is not a member of the class of qualified resident voters allegedly discriminated against by the statute.

Harriss v. . Wright

121 N.C. 172 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1897

In this county the sovereign people have established National and State constitutions, and these constitutions are the (179) supreme law of the land. … No man or men have yet been able to establish a government capable of accomplishing its legitimate ends, and also incapable of some inconvenience and mischief.

Voswinkel v. City of Charlotte

495 F. Supp. 588 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 19, 1980

, must reflect a clearly secular legislative purpose, . second, must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, . and, third, must avoid excessive government entanglement with religion. . . . ” Committee … Our cases simply do not support the notion that a law found to have a ‘primary’ effect to promote some legitimate end under the State’s police power is immune from further examination to ascertain whether it also has the

Hannon

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 6, 2026

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe … was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Sahoo v. Gleaton

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 1, 2019

Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … And as to qualified immunity, the law was clearly established that “the integrity of one’s family is of the greatest importance” and “a parent is entitled to a hearing initiated by the State before he may be deprived of

McClary v. Dixie

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 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

R.W. v. CHAPEL HILL-CARRBORO CITY SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 9, 2020

First is the question of whether the Individual Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. … a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the right was ‘clearly established’” at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Lyda v. Griffin

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 18, 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

Gilreath v. Cumberland Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

798 S.E.2d 438 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 18, 2017

"[N]on-outsiders often enjoy qualified immunity from liability for inducing their corporation or other entity to breach its contract with an employee." Lenzer v. Flaherty , 106 N.C. … It is well established that "[t]o assert a direct constitutional claim ... a plaintiff must allege that no adequate state remedy exists to provide relief for the injury."

McNeil v. Scotland County

213 F. Supp. 2d 559 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 24, 2002

Even assuming arguendo that Plaintiff has a disability under the ADA, Plaintiff failed to establish that she is a “qualified individual” as defined by the ADA. … Furthermore, “[i]n mandating only those modifications that qualify as reasonable, Congress clearly meant to avoid placing employers in an untenable business position.” Id. (citing Southeastern Community College v.

Nursing Registry, Inc. v. Eastern North Carolina Regional Emergency Medical Services Consortium, Inc.

959 F. Supp. 298 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 7, 1997

County defendants claim absolute immunity under what is known as the state action doctrine. … allows, as the County defendants argue, “wide latitude to regulate, establish, operate, or contract with ambulance services.”

Cunningham v. . Sprinkle

124 N.C. 638 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 9, 1899

The points in this case, however important, are comparatively simple and clearly presented. There is no effort to remove the 'defendants from office, or to deprive them of any rights of property therein. … This sec *642 tion does not profess to establish any snob department, bnt simply directs the Legislature to do so, leaving to it tbe largest latitude of regulation.

Hammond v. City of Charlotte

206 N.C. 604 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 20, 1934

in favor of the. measure to establish and maintain by taxation a system of graded schools in the city of Charlotte. … The findings of fact are clearly sustained by the evidence in the record and there can be no question under the well settled law that the plaintiff’s judgments are a valid, binding obligation of the city of Charlotte.

Key v. Woodlief

258 N.C. 291 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 12, 1962

In this case the witness did not qualify himself to testify as to speed. Therefore, the testi *294 mony was without probative force, clearly incompetent, and properly excluded. Hudson v. … Did the evidence adversely affect the plaintiff’s efforts to establish defendant’s negligence?

Creighton v. Lazell-Frankel

178 N.C. App. 227 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 20, 2006

that the award would be clearly inappropriate. … See G.S. § 50A-102 (3) (defining "child custody determination"); mother qualified as a person who sought enforcement of a child custody determination pursuant to G.S. § 50A-301(1); and that he qualified as "a person against

S.Y. v. Sampson County Board of Education

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

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … In analyzing qualified immunity, the court asks (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right at issue was clearly established at

Tate v. Dravo Corp.

623 F. Supp. 1090 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 12, 1985

Given the discrepancies in the employment records noted above, it is not clearly established that there were no welders from Plant 6 who occasionally filled the Defendant’s fluctuating needs at Plant 5 without a formal record … Armour & Co., 743 F.2d 199, 214 (4th Cir.1984) (pattern of intentional discrimination in denying qualified black candidates sales and supervisory positions established by statistical evidence, specific instances of intentional

Murrill v. Choice Hotels Int'l, Inc.

383 F. Supp. 3d 594 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 17, 2019

enough of an undertaking regarding workplace safety to establish independent liability. … at the same time, establishing such domination on [defendant's] part as to render it a statutory employer and thus entitled to immunity under the workers' compensation law."

Deminski v. State

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 7, 2020

immunity bar.”). … Governmental Immunity Under the doctrine of governmental immunity, county boards of education are often shielded “entirely from having to answer for [their] conduct at all in a civil suit for damages.”

North Carolina Board of Examiners for Speech & Language Pathologists & Audiologists v. North Carolina State Board of Education

122 N.C. App. 15 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 19, 1996

Inexplicably, Section .1529 is used as authority for this proposition by plaintiffs, without reference to anything clearly denoting its legal force or value. … Based on the foregoing, it is inescapable that the intent of the legislature was to ensure, in every instance, that only qualified persons engage in the practice of speech pathology: A qualified speech pathologist is a person