Case law

SINGH v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 2, 2023

Finally, the individual capacity claims fail on qualified immunity grounds because the Individual Defendants did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. … Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231 (2009) (“Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.”)

Campbell v. Anderson

156 N.C. App. 371 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 4, 2003

of qualified immunity requires (1) identification of the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determining whether at the time of the alleged violation the right was clearly established; and (3) if so, then determining … Plaintiff sufficiently identified specific rights clearly established at the time of the violation and has met the first two prongs. The third prong of the test may require a factual analysis. See Roberts v.

Rogerson v. Fitzpatrick

170 N.C. App. 387 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 2005

Forsyth, for support of the proposition that when a court looks at qualified immunity, "[a]ll it need determine is a question of law." … Likewise, this Court has concluded that when ruling on the defense of qualified immunity, we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established

Vest v. Easley

145 N.C. App. 70 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 17, 2001

They may, however, defend by raising the defense of qualified immunity. Id. … Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing official, discretionary functions if the conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Claudio v. United States

836 F. Supp. 1219 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 2, 1993

Moreover, even if the asserted right is “clearly established,” the qualified immunity defense still protects the official if “he neither knew nor should have known of the relevant legal standard.” … Rights Clearly Established The First and Fifth Amendment rights to free speech, due process and equal protection certainly are clearly established.

Rousselo v. Starling

128 N.C. App. 439 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 3, 1998

We agree and conclude that under the doctrine of qualified immunity Trooper Starling was immune from suit because a reasonable person in his position would not have known that his actions violated a clearly established right … Police officers sued under section 1983 are not protected by qualified immunity if the officers’ conduct violated “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ”

Huber v. North Carolina State University

163 N.C. App. 638 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 20, 2004

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials per *645 forming discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … We must therefore determine whether Plaintiff’s right to privacy was clearly established at the time.

Toomer v. Garrett

155 N.C. App. 462 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 31, 2002

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 … The qualified immunity inquiry requires a determination of whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time it was allegedly violated. See Andrews, supra.

Thompson v. Farmer

945 F. Supp. 109 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 28, 1996

Taken together Mitchell and Johnson establish a continuum along which the court makes qualified immunity decisions. … Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 , 111 S.Ct. 1789 , 114 L.Ed.2d 277 (1991) (dismissal on grounds of qualified immunity proper where plaintiff’s complaint did not allege a clearly established’ legal norm or its violation).

Barnett v. Karpinos

119 N.C. App. 719 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 15, 1995

In reviewing this argument, we apply the following standard: “The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section 1983] is whether [the officers’ conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional … In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Painter v. City of MT

823 S.E.2d 583 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 5, 2019

"Qualified immunity shields government officials from civil damages liability unless the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged conduct." … In the absence of such a clearly established right, the officer-defendants were entitled to qualified immunity from a 42 U.S.C. § 1985 conspiracy claim because they were employed by the same department. Id.

Farrell Ex Rel. Farrell v. Transylvania County Board of Education

175 N.C. App. 689 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 2006

“Qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing official, discretionary functions if the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Assuming arguendo that plaintiffs properly pled its claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , plaintiffs’ allegations, nonetheless, fail to establish any conduct by Haehnel that violated clearly established statutory

Jensen v. Jessamy

242 N.C. App. 384 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 21, 2015

"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 person … "In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Harris v. Mack

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 20, 2023

Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their … a constitutional right and (2) ‘whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’ ”).

Mallas v. Kolak

721 F. Supp. 748 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 13, 1989

of their qualified immunity. … Moreover, the court finds that officials sued for constitutional violations which are not clearly established do not lose their qualified immunity merely because their conduct also violates some statutory or administrative

Staley v. Lingerfelt

134 N.C. App. 294 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 20, 1999

App. at 725-26 , 460 S.E.2d at 211 : ‘The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section 1983] is whether [the officers’ conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Moore v. Evans

124 N.C. App. 35 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 15, 1996

Generally, qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing discretionary functions to the extent that such conduct “ ‘does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In order to establish the existence of an official’s right to the defense of qualified immunity, one must (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether that right was clearly established; and (

Barrett v. Board of Education

13 F. Supp. 3d 502 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 9, 2014

Qualified immunity. … The last two prongs of the qualified immunity test turn on “the objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” Cole v.

Glenn-Robinson v. Acker

140 N.C. App. 606 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 5, 2000

“The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section 1983] is whether [the officers’ conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Cranford v. Kluttz

278 F. Supp. 3d 848 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2017

established” for qualified immunity purposes. … interest may make it more difficult to find the law ‘clearly established’ when assessing claims of qualified immunity.”); Borucki v.