Case law

Crocker v. Griffin

204 N.C. App. 210 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 18, 2010

"`The liability clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, [and] threats[.]'" Wagoner v. Elkin City Schools' Bd. of Education, 113 N.C. App. 579, 586 , 440 S.E.2d 119, 123 (1994) (citations omitted). … Public Official Immunity Plaintiffs argue the trial court erred by dismissing plaintiffs' claim for NIED against Griffin in her individual capacity under the public official immunity doctrine. We disagree.

RPR & Associates, Inc. v. University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill

153 N.C. App. 342 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 15, 2002

A right is substantial when it will clearly be lost or irremediably and adversely affected if the order is not reviewed before final judgment. See Cagle v. Teachy, 111 N.C. App. 244, 246 , 431 S.E.2d 801, 802 (1993). … The substantial right at issue was based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity which, defendant asserted, barred plaintiffs suit.

Formyduval v. Britt

177 N.C. App. 654 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 6, 2006

Bunn moved to exclude plaintiffs' proposed experts alleging they failed to qualify under N.C. Gen. … The statute clearly and unambiguously applies only to "any complaint alleging medical malpractice by a health care provider." Id. In Thigpen v.

JORDAN v. CHATHAM COUNTY SCHOOLS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 29, 2023

To bring a claim under either statute, a plaintiff must establish: “(1) they have a disability; (2) they are otherwise qualified to receive the benefits of a public service, program, … “A coverage agreement with the North Carolina School Boards Trust [NCSBT] ‘does not waive [sovereign] immunity because the NCSBT does not qualify as liability insurance under section

In re: Cube Yadkin Generation

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 17, 2019

Effective 26 January 2016, the Commission thus revised its Legally-Enforceable-Obligation test, ordering that for a Qualifying Facility to establish a Legally Enforceable Obligation, the developer of the Qualifying … When it created this test, the Commission provided the following justification for the NOC Form: [U]se of a simple form clearly establishing a [Qualifying Facility’s] commitment to sell its electric

Shine v. The City of Asheville

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 20, 2022

Qualified immunity shields police officers in their individual capacities from liability unless their conduct constitutes a violation of clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … In determining whether the officer at issue is entitled to qualified immunity, the Court must (1) identify the specific right violated; (2) determine whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged

Ford v. Jurgens

2021 NCBC 64 · North Carolina Business Court · Oct 5, 2021

Once the party invoking the doctrine establishes that the documents or things in question were prepared in anticipation of litigation, work product immunity attaches unless the other party establishes that he has “substantial … may not have fully understood the legal ramifications resulting from the transfer of Association funds at the time the transfer occurred, Defendants point out that the operating agreement that was thereafter created clearly

State v. Bullock

320 N.C. 780 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 7, 1987

The statements and non-verbal conduct in question were clearly made for the purpose of medical diagnosis and treatment. … The statements and demonstrations were, equally clearly, pertinent to medical diagnosis and treatment.

Fuller v. Sheppard

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 25, 2023

DISCUSSION “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

MciLwain v. Hensley

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 22, 2025

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

State v. Rankin

371 N.C. 885 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 21, 2018

This Court held that the indictment was facially valid because it clearly identified "the conduct which [was] the subject of the accusation" by alleging that the defendant received United States currency by pawning stolen … this Court emphasized: The test here suggested, however, is not universally sufficient, and a careful examination of the principle will disclose that the rule and its application depends not so much on the placing of the qualifying

Davis v. . Frazier

150 N.C. 447 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 14, 1909

It does not clearly appear from the testimony that the defendant entered as assignee under this deed; but, assuming this to be true, we are of opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to have her cause submitted to a jury, … This is clearly illustrated and upheld in the case to which we were referred by counsel, Epperson v. Epperson , 108 Va. 608 .

Almond v. Boyles

612 F. Supp. 223 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 25, 1985

The vendors had set up a private retirement program, though it was clearly inadequate to meet their needs. … RANDOLPH-SHEPPARD ACT VIOLATION There was clearly a violation of the Randolph-Sheppard Act in this case.

Equal Employment Oppurtunity Commission v. Dollar General Corp.

252 F. Supp. 2d 277 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 20, 2003

Bost was a quali *282 fied individual with a disability, Plaintiff cannot establish its prima facie case. … Therefore, to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory firing, “a plaintiff must prove: (1) he has a disability; (2) he is a qualified individual; and (3) in discharging] him, his employer diseriminate[d] against [him

Murdock v. Ingram

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 1, 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

Watts v. Cumberland County Hospital System, Inc.

75 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 4, 1985

A witness’ testimony should not be excluded because there are other witnesses who are better qualified or more knowledgeable. Id. … However, the issue of fraud may be summarily adjudicated when it is clearly established that there is no genuine issue of material fact. (Citations omitted.) Johnson, 300 N.C. at 260 , 266 S.E. 2d at 619 .

State v. Barts

316 N.C. 666 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 3, 1986

than those which are not “death qualified.” … Supp. 1164 (W.D.N.C. 1984), rev’d, 742 F. 2d 129 (4th Cir. 1984), indicate that “death qualified” juries are more conviction-prone than those which are not “death qualified.”

State v. Holland

150 N.C. App. 457 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 4, 2002

Defendant first argues on appeal that Trooper Hiatt’s testimony was inadmissible because he should not have been qualified as an expert in the field of accident reconstruction, and because he failed to establish that his … James Roberts, and Greene himself clearly established what defendant sought to prove: that Greene had a history of health and alcohol problems that could have affected his capabilities at the time of the accident.

Preston v. Movahed

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 3, 2020

MOVAHED Opinion of the Court the evidence establishes that Dr. … Clearly plaintiff should have been aware that a clinical cardiologist like Dr.

State v. Anderson

275 N.C. 168 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 12, 1969

Uniformity of rules is clearly contemplated and is clearly desirable. … The Court said: “However, it is our unqualified judgment that the purpose sought to be achieved by requiring cyclists to wear protective headgear clearly qualified as a proper subject for legislation.