Case law

BYRD v. NC DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 14, 2024

Congress, acting under powers granted to it in [S]ection [F]ive of the Fourteenth Amendment, has clearly abrogated [their] immunity.” Id.; see also Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. … “In order to establish a violation of Title II [of the ADA], [Plaintiff] must allege that,” id., “(1) he has a disability, (2) he is otherwise qualified to participate in the [public

MCNEILL v. POOLE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 13, 2020

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

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.

Fazzari v. New Hanover Reg'l Med. Ctr.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 1, 2021

NEW HANOVER REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ET AL. 2021-NCCOA-242 Opinion of the Court clearly evident that Dr. … App. 569, 574, 821 S.E.2d 277, 281 (2018) (“Allowing a plaintiff’s expert witness to selectively review a mere portion of the relevant medical records would run afoul of the General Assembly’s clearly expressed

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

VANG v. ASHBY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 17, 2020

“Qualified immunity from [Section] 1983 claims ‘protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … “Determining whether qualified immunity applies involves a two-prong inquiry: ‘whether the facts make out a violation of a constitutional right’ and ‘whether the right at issue 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.

Brown v. Kindred Nursing Centers East, L.L.C.

196 N.C. App. 659 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 5, 2009

They contended (1) that plaintiffs complaint did not assert that the questioned medical care had been reviewed by a person who was reasonably expected to qualify as an expert witness or whom plaintiff would seek to have qualified … Clearly, the original complaint in Thigpen did not comply with Rulé 9(j)’s pleading requirements.

United States v. Southerly Portion of Bodie Island, NC

114 F. Supp. 427 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 15, 1953

And in the absence of such phraseology in the Act, “we cannot read into it limitations not clearly indicated by Congress.” United States v. … principle was earlier stated in Re Condemnations for Improvement of Rouge River, D.C., 266 F. 105, 119 , as follows: “* *, *. when, as here, the United States is the condemning' party, its power to take property is not qualified

The People of N.C. Ex Rel . Van Bokkelen v. . Canaday

73 N.C. 198 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1875

Where were the other 2,937 qualified voters? … This of itself takes this case out of the ordinary rules and doctrines applying to elections, and establishes that this was in no sense an election by the qualified voters of the city, but simply an attempt to delegate to

State v. Harding

291 N.C. 223 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 7, 1976

Assuming, without deciding, that the declarations of Clyde Ray Englebert to David Henson did not qualify as dying declarations under G.S. 8-51.1, this testimony was clearly competent to corroborate the statements made by … Clearly, this evidence established the identity of the caller as Clyde Ray Englebert.

Bingham v. Garland

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

Barbier v. Durham County Board of Education

225 F. Supp. 2d 617 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 30, 2002

Moreover, the Court notes that anxiety is clearly a recognized medical condition. See generally Fox v. Gen. … In the same case, the Fourth Circuit declined to state an opinion regarding whether attorney contact would qualify as an affirmative act. Id. 4 .

State v. Hinchman

192 N.C. App. 657 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 16, 2008

Anderson did not testify as to her own qualifications the State could not establish that she was a “qualified person.” This argument ignores the governing statute and decisions of this Court. … Clearly, Mr.

School Commissioners v. Board of Aldermen & Treasurer

158 N.C. 191 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 28, 1912

purposes so approved of by a majority of qualified voters of the city, and levy a tax in accordance with the provisions of this act.” … For the control and management of the school system, a board of commissioners is established, to be elected by the people of the city. The mayor, while chairman ex oficio, is not allowed to vote except in ease of a tie.

CHAPEL HILL TITLE & ABSTRACT CO. v. Town of Chapel Hill

362 N.C. 649 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 12, 2008

[A] showing that the portion of the Resource Conservation District outside of a regulatory floodplain overlays more than seventy-five percent (75%) of the area of a zoning lot, shall establish a rebuttable presumption that … However, the noble purpose of the RCD Ordinance does not grant respondents immunity from the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution or the Constitution of North Carolina.

State v. Puckett

43 N.C. App. 596 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 6, 1979

Nor have the appellate courts of the State in applying this law to various tools and implements established a pattern so as to clarify the crime. See, 2 Strong’s N.C. Index 3d Burglary § 10.3. … Clearly it is the public policy of this State, as expressed in the statutes relating to detention or custodial care of juveniles, that juveniles have a special status apart from adults who are either detained in a jail awaiting

Cardwell v. Forsyth County Zoning Board of Adjustment

88 N.C. App. 244 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 22, 1987

Section 33 clearly categorizes applications or requests for “special exceptions” as “appeals.” … (b) If this Chapter and a local act each provide a procedure that contains every action necessary for the performance or execution of a power, right, duty, function, privilege, or immunity, the two procedures may be used

Yassoo Enterprises, Inc. v. North Carolina Joint Underwriting Ass'n

73 N.C. App. 52 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 19, 1985

Chief O’Ferrell was initially qualified only as an expert in arson investigation. … Those standards are also clearly established in our law. See Morrison v. Concord Kiwanis Club, 52 N.C. App. 454 , 279 S.E. 2d 96 , rev. denied, 304 N.C. 196 , 285 S.E. 2d 100 (1981).

Appeal of Springmoor, Inc.

348 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Apr 3, 1998

. § 105-275(32)(v) violates the prohibition against the establishment of religion found in Article I, Section 13 of the North Carolina Constitution and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States … Thus, the appropriate mode of analysis is an Establishment Clause inquiry, which utilizes the Lemon tests.