Case law

Braswell v. Medina

255 N.C. App. 217 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 5, 2017

Qualified Immunity We also reject the Officers’ assertion that dismissal of Braswell’s § 1983 claims was appropriate pursuant to the qualified immunity doctrine. … “The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability under § 1983 insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Hunter v. Transylvania County Department of Social Services

207 N.C. App. 735 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 2, 2010

Moody’s appeal is clearly from an interlocutory order. Generally, there is no right of immediate appeal from an interlocutory order. See Christmas v. Cabarrus Cty., 192 N.C. … to proceed to trial regardless of a valid immunity claim, the immunity would be effectively lost.

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.”

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.

Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.

215 N.C. 491 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 3, 1939

We do not think ourselves warranted, therefore, in extending the exemption established by the case of McCulloch v. Maryland, beyond its terms. … The unemployed could not, under the requirements of the statute, qualify to receive compensation for their involuntary unemployment during that year.

Cowell v. Gaston County

190 N.C. App. 743 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 3, 2008

immunity. … 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.

Happel v. Guilford Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 17, 2026

Opinion of the Court required to “conclusively establish” any factual issue in the case. … Our Supreme Court has clearly stated that the federal PREP Act provides immunity to both entities and individuals against “any type of tortious injury: physical injury, property damage, loss of use, and so on.”

Bigelow v. Town of Chapel Hill

227 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 7, 2013

“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 *3 is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” … Defendants had placed Bigelow in the pool of applicants qualified for the driving position, and had interviewed him, but stated to the EEOC that they had hired the lesser-qualified Town because Bigelow was unqualified for

Happel v. Guilford Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 5, 2024

The PREP Act further defines the terms “manufacturer,” “distributor,” “program planner,” and “qualified person” as described below. ... … The declaration clearly provides that a program planner may be a private sector employer or community group when it carries out the “described activities” including administration of a covered countermeasure.

Patel v. Moron

897 F. Supp. 2d 389 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 25, 2012

Alternatively, defendants assert the defense of qualified immunity. … In Mitchell , the Supreme Court observed that “[u]nless the plaintiffs allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Butterfield v. Gray

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 5, 2021

“[I]t is well- established that the denial of a motion for summary judgment grounded on governmental immunity affects a substantial right and is immediately appealable[.]” Lucas v. Swain Cnty. … ¶ 18 This Court held that the physicians did not qualify as public officials and accordingly were not entitled to immunity from suit in their individual capacities. Id.

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.

Clark v. Statesville.

139 N.C. 490 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 15, 1905

A consideration of article 6 of the Constitution, and of the system of conducting elections in this State established under its provisions, leads us, without any hesitation, to the conclusion that such a construction would … In all .other respects, the two classes of voters, those who are educationally qualified and those otherwise qualified under said section, are to remain on the same footing and to be subject alike to the same laws regulating

White v. Trew, 366 NC 360

366 N.C. 360 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 25, 2013

Defendant denied the material allegations of the complaint and asserted a number of defenses, including qualified privilege and sovereign immunity. … The court concluded that sovereign immunity did not bar plaintiff’s claim because “plaintiff sought to sue defendant in his individual capacity and drafted the complaint in such a way that clearly indicated this intent.”

Allen v. Cooper

244 F. Supp. 3d 525 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 23, 2017

These individual defendants have raised additional defenses of legislative and qualified immunity. … However, “the Court does not believe that qualified immunity applies to the individual defendants as a matter of law because the law of [copyright] infringement is clearly established, relegating the application of such immunity

Pippen v. Scales

822 F. Supp. 305 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 17, 1993

Additionally, defendant Tomlinson is entitled to qualified immunity as an agent of the Board. … State Bar of Texas, 791 F.2d 435, 438 (5th Cir.1986) (investigator for State Bar entitled to qualified immunity). 2.

Hutton v. Logan

152 N.C. App. 94 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 6, 2002

Good Samaritan statutes often require the person providing the emergency care to do so “in good faith” and without expecting payment for the assistance in order to qualify for the statutory immunity. … We disagree. “ ‘[A] directed verdict for defendant on the basis of contributory negligence [is] proper only if the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff [establishes plaintiff’s] [] negligence so clearly

HARRIS BY TUCKER v. County of Forsyth

921 F. Supp. 325 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 28, 1996

The Individual Defendants are Entitled to Qualified Immunity. The individual Defendants have moved for summary judgment on Plaintiffs section 1983 claim on the basis that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity shields government officials from [section] 1983 liability, as long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known

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. … Ed. 2d 411, 426 (1985) (Public officials are immune unless “the law clearly proscribed the actions [they] took.”).

Motley v. State Board of Barber Examiners

228 N.C. 337 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 10, 1947

We are of the opinion that the 1947 amendment admitting qualified veterans to the trade is not necessarily of that character. … Tbe Unconstitutionality must clearly appear before tbe Court can so declare it. Brumley v. Baxter, 225 N. C., 691 , 36 S. E. (2d), 281 ; S. v. Brockwell, 209 N. C., 209 , 183 S. E., 378 .