Case law

Valdez-Bey v. Castalone

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 3, 2022

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

Forsyth County Hospital Authority, Inc. v. Bowen

675 F. Supp. 1002 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 11, 1987

For these reasons, the parties have stipulated that plaintiff and the Foundation qualify as “related organizations” under 42 C.F.R. § 405.427 (1982). {Id. at 257). … findings, and conclusions upon any of the following specific bases: (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Bouygues Telecom, S.A. v. Tekelec

472 F. Supp. 2d 722 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 31, 2007

That is clearly not the case with the opinions of these experts. … At hearing, the court will look to plaintiff to carry its burden of establishing Lancaster’s ability to opine specifically on such matters by a preponderance of the proof.

Rosenthal v. City of Goldsboro

149 N.C. 128 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 19, 1908

This doctrine, so clearly and forcibly stated by the learned Justice, was apparently qualified to some extent in State v. Higgs, a decision of this Court, reported in 126 N. … public weal, and will never do so unless their action should be so clearly unreasonable as to amount to an oppressive and manifest abuse of their discretion.

Waddill v. . Masten

172 N.C. 582 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 29, 1916

The defendant Masten was the duly qualified and acting register of deeds of Forsyth County from 1 December, 1908, to 1 December, 1912. … In the present case, if the allegations of the complaint are established, there was a vested right of action for these fees in the county of For-syth.

Whetsell v. Jernigan

291 N.C. 128 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 4, 1976

Thus, these cases are distinguishable from the conveyance in the case at bar which had no qualifying clause in the habendum. Were it not for the decisions in Artis v. Artis, supra, and Oxendine v. … Hill, 112 N.C. 1, 18 , 16 S.E. 1011, 1016 (1893), quoting from Fearne, Contingent Remainders and Executory Devises 171 (Butler ed. 1862) : “ ‘Certain established maxims as to the legal import and effect of technical expressions

State v. Younts

254 N.C. App. 581 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 18, 2017

This evidence standing alone is insufficient to establish, in accordance with the statutory criteria, the HGN test as a reliable indicator of impairment. … The Supreme Court ultimately concluded in Godwin that “with the 2006 amendment to Rule 702, our General Assembly clearly signaled that the results of the HGN test are sufficiently reliable to be admitted into the courts

United States v. Appelbaum

47 F. Supp. 3d 370 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 19, 2014

Congress need not use magic words to speak clearly. Id. … “Congress retained the United States’ sovereign immunity for any claim in respect of the assessment or collection of taxes.

Hall v. United Air Lines, Inc.

296 F. Supp. 2d 652 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Oct 30, 2003

In order to find that a transaction enjoys antitrust immunity, it must meet “two prongs: the court must find (1) that the conduct charged was approved by a specific order of the [DOT] or was clearly contemplated by such an … as the alleged conduct is clearly within the contemplation of prior [DOT] orders ....

State v. Helms

345 N.C. 578 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 5, 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.

Moseley v. Hendricks

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 6, 2024

Thus, unlike in this case, the plaintiff was clearly visible to the defendant as he was—and had been—playing right in front of him. Id. … “Under the doctrine of governmental immunity, a county or municipal corporation is immune from suit for the negligence of its employees in the exercise of governmental functions absent waiver of immunity.”

State v. Mitchell

217 N.C. 244 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 6, 1940

Then we are faced by well recognized and firmly established rules of construction which preclude the adoption of this interpretation. … The forbidden act must come clearly within the prohibition of the statute for the scope of a penal statute will not ordinarily be enlarged by construction to take in offenses not clearly described; and any doubt on this point

Hyde-El v. Nethken

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 19, 2022

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

State v. Armstrong

345 N.C. 161 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 6, 1996

Defendant does not dispute the sufficiency of the evidence establishing that the crime of first-degree murder was committed but contends that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he was the perpetrator. … Defendant contends that in admitting this testimony, the trial court erroneously permitted Detective Whitt to give his opinion without first qualifying *166 him as an expert.

Lutterloh v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad

172 N.C. 116 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 4, 1916

The negligence of the defendant company being clearly established,, we have also held in numerous cases that although one who is undertaking to cross a railroad track is required to look and listen and to take note of conditions … which are likely to cause injury, the facts and attendant circumstances may so qualify this obligation that the question of contributory negligence must be submitted to the jury.

S. Envtl. Law Ctr. v. Saylor

2019 NCBC 59 · North Carolina Business Court · Sep 11, 2019

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings should not be granted unless the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” … On a Rule 12(c) motion, “[t]he movant is held to a strict standard and must show that no material issue of facts exists and that he is clearly entitled to judgment.” Ragsdale v.

Rowan County Board of Education v. United States Gypsum Co.

332 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 17, 1992

. § 1-50(6), a products liability statute of repose, both establish a *6 six-year repose period. N.C.G.S. §§ 1-50(5), -50(6) (Supp. 1991). N.C.G.S. § 1-52(5) prescribes a three-year limitation period. … Clearly, if USG is correct that the statutes of limitation and repose apply to Rowan, Rowan’s suit, which was brought twenty-four years after the last installation, was time-barred.

Cain v. Osborne

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

Edwards v. High Point Police Department

559 F. Supp. 2d 653 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 3, 2008

If the answer is yes, the Court must consider whether the constitutional right was clearly established and whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that the officer’s conduct was unlawful. … Qualified immunity protects law enforcement officers from “bad guesses in gray areas” and ensures that they are liable only “for transgressing bright lines.” Maciariello v.

In Re Butts

157 N.C. App. 609 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 20, 2003

In the instant case, the transcript does not establish that respondent confessed to committing a first degree sex offense while Mr. Butts was in the interrogation room. … Under N.C.G.S. § 8C-1, Rule 702 (2001), “[i]f scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert