Case law

Blackburn v. Trustees of Guilford Technical Community College

822 F. Supp. 2d 539 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2011

Community college employees clearly do not fall within any defined group in sections 126-5(a)(2) or (3). … The court granted the motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because Blackburn failed to allege that she was a "qualified individual" under the ADA, thus rendering moot the sovereign immunity

Boyd v. Robeson County

615 S.E.2d 296 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 15, 2005

Qualified Immunity The detention officers next argue that summary judgment should have been granted on the § 1983 claims based on qualified immunity. 4 The United States Supreme Court has held that "[t]he threshold inquiry … a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiff's allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation."

PATTERSON

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 4, 2025

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 … Thus, the traditional two-step qualified immunity inquiry requires a court to determine: “(1) whether the official violated a constitutional right; and if so, (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Simmons v. Justice

87 F. Supp. 2d 524 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 25, 2000

Law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity from liability for civil damages, but only to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … immunity analysis, the Court must determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of the incident.

York v. City of Burlington

225 F. Supp. 3d 341 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 22, 2016

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … Officials will receive immunity unless the § 1983 claim satisfies a two-prong test: (1) the allegations, if true, substantiate a violation of a federal statutory or constitutional right and (2) the right was “clearly established

Williams Ex Rel. Williams v. Randolph Hospital, Inc.

237 N.C. 387 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 25, 1953

Thus the rule to which we adhere is that of qualified immunity. The plaintiff, conceding the existence of the rule which obtains with us, takes a dual position in prosecuting this appeal. … The range of decision is from absolute liability to complete immunity, with the weight of authority being on the side of immunity, either total or qualified.

Shuping v. Barber

89 N.C. App. 242 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 15, 1988

If defendants successfully establish facts sufficient to show a qualified privilege, plaintiff would be required to show that the publication was made with actual malice in order to recover. See Stewart v. … If defendants successfully establish the affirmative defense of qualified privilege, plaintiff will be required, in order to recover, to show that the publication was made with actual malice.

Guseh v. North Carolina Central University

423 F. Supp. 2d 550 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 14, 2005

Plaintiff is clearly a member of a protected class and clearly did not receive the. desired promotion. … First, Plaintiff has clearly shown that he was a member of the protected class and that there is an issue of fact as to whether he was qualified for the position. Plaintiff alleges that Dr.

May v. City of Durham

136 N.C. App. 578 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 15, 2000

defense, the plaintiff must present facts sufficient to overcome this qualified immunity. … A government official has qualified immunity in the performance of discretionary functions “to the extent that such conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Russ v. Causey

732 F. Supp. 2d 589 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 5, 2010

Qualified Immunity Government officials sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages under § 1983 so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Next, assuming that the violation of the right is established, courts must consider whether the right was clearly established at the time such that it would be clear to an objectively reasonable officer that his conduct violated

Dickerson Carolina, Inc. v. Harrelson

114 N.C. App. 693 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 1994

Public officials cannot be liable for damages in a civil rights action based on federal law unless clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known have been violated. … Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 528 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2816 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411, 426 (1985) (Public officials are immune unless "the law clearly proscribed the actions [they] took.").

Baznik v. FCA US LLC

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 2, 2021

FCA US LLC 2021-NCCOA-583 Opinion of the Court of public official immunity and/or qualified immunity, as well as the doctrine of … Stat. § 143B-346 as statutes that clearly establish their positions within NCDOT as these statutes do not establish any position within NCDOT.  BAZNIK V.

Cade v. County of Bladen

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 11, 2020

In proving different treatment of similarly situated employees in the disciplinary context, “[t]he similarity between comparators and the seriousness of their respective offenses must be clearly established in … Walls, 347 N.C. 97, 104 (1997) (“Under the doctrine of governmental immunity, a county is immune from suit for the negligence of its employees in the exercise of governmental functions absent waiver of immunity.”).

Sides v. Cabarrus Memorial Hospital, Inc.

287 N.C. 14 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 14, 1975

Said executive committee . . . shall in general carry out the spirit and intent of this Act in establishing and maintaining a county public hospital. . . . … Here, however, we believe the following language clearly indicates the direction we should now take: “[W]e recognize merit in the modern tendency to restrict rather than to extend the application of governmental immunity.

Demurry v. North Carolina Department of Corrections

195 N.C. App. 485 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 3, 2009

, public official immunity, and qualified immunity. … Our appellate courts have determined that sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, governmental immunity, and public official’s immunity are affirmative defenses. See, e.g., Summey v.

Layman v. Alexander

294 F. Supp. 2d 784 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 21, 2003

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 … If, however, the facts viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff do establish such a violation, the court must determine whether the right was clearly established such that a reasonable official would have known

Edmundson v. Keesler

904 F. Supp. 478 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 2, 1995

If a plaintiff has alleged a clearly established right, summary judgment is improper as long as there remains any genuine issue of material fact regarding the actual conduct of the defendants. Id. at 359-60 . … In deciding whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, the court must (1) identify the specific constitutional right allegedly violated, (2) determine whether that right was clearly established at the time of

Warlick v. Wilson

902 F. Supp. 90 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 18, 1995

a response and, where appropriate, a summary judgment motion on qualified immunity grounds.’ ” Id. at 763 . … Plaintiffs fail to allege any details regarding the alleged incident nor do plaintiffs allege which clearly established constitutional rights were violated.

Turner v. Special Agent Thomas

235 N.C. App. 520 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 5, 2014

"The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability under § 1983 'insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … "The qualified immunity inquiry requires a determination of whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time it was allegedly violated." Id. at 474, 574 S.E.2d at 87.

Price v. City of Fayetteville

22 F. Supp. 3d 551 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 21, 2014

In their motion for judgment on the pleadings, defendants argue that the doctrine of qualified immunity bars the individual capacity claims against defendant Sessoms. … Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity from civil damages so long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”