Case law

Patrick v. Wake County Department of Human Services

188 N.C. App. 592 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 5, 2008

Here, defendants’ insurance policy unambiguously states, “this policy provides coverage only for occurrences or wrongful acts for which the defense of governmental immunity is clearly not applicable . ...” … The defense of sovereign immunity clearly applies to bar plaintiff’s claims. The trial court properly granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. This assignment of error is overruled. D.

White v. Trew

217 N.C. App. 574 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 20, 2011

Sovereign immunity would then apply and the suit would be barred. … A manager dictated a libelous letter to a stenographer who then sent it to the plaintiff, and the court held that the stenographer did not qualify as a third person for purposes of publication because “[t]he manager could

Love-Lane v. Martin

201 F. Supp. 2d 566 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 26, 2002

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials are shielded from liability for civil damages to the extent their conduct “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … In response to Martin’s assertion of qualified immunity, Plaintiff offers the following; Martin cannot establish his defense of qualified immunity as a matter of law.

Davis v. North Carolina

180 F. Supp. 2d 774 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 20, 2001

The amendment will allow Plaintiffs to avoid Defendants’ Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity defense, and is thus clearly not futile. 1 For these reasons, the *777 Court, and will accept the Amended Complaint. … It is well-established that a Plaintiffs injury must be “concrete and particularized, and ... actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical ...” in order to qualify as an “injury in fact.”

Klassette Ex Rel. Klassette v. Mecklenburg County Area Mental Health, Mental Retardation & Substance Abuse Authority

88 N.C. App. 495 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 2, 1988

of its governmental immunity. … The Center was established pursuant to the general provisions of N.C.G.S. Sec. 122C et seq. (1986).

Dickinson v. University of North Carolina

91 F. Supp. 3d 755 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 16, 2015

To succeed on a statute-of-limitations defense at this stage, all facts necessary to show the time bar must clearly appear “on the face of the complaint.” Id. a. … A “qualified individual with a disability” is defined the same as it is under the ADA. See 29 U.S.C. § 705 (20)(B).

Hammond v. Saini

229 N.C. App. 359 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 3, 2013

However, where a party asserts a privilege or immunity that directly relates to the matter to be disclosed pursuant to the interlocutory discovery order and the assertion of the privilege or immunity is not frivolous or insubstantial … If so, plaintiff contends, the notes would not qualify for work product immunity under Rule 26(b)(3) because they would have been prepared pursuant to hospital policy as a matter of course following incidents of this nature

Copper Ex Rel. Copper v. Denlinger

193 N.C. App. 249 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 21, 2008

This Court has set out the following test for qualified immunity: 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 … of the complaint to determine whether qualified immunity is established.”

State v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

193 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 7, 2008

Sovereign immunity is a common law doctrine that prohibits a lawsuit against the State of North Carolina “unless it consents to be sued or upon its waiver of immunity.” Guthrie v. N.C. … In short, the plain language of the MSA establishes that the issue of the application of the NPM adjustment for 2003, including the question of diligent enforcement, must be arbitrated.

Moore v. City of Creedmoor

345 N.C. 356 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 10, 1997

Further, we hold that neither defendant is entitled to “qualified immunity.” … As we stated above, qualified immunity may protect government officials from personal liability for performing the discretionary functions of an office to the extent that such conduct does not violate “clearly established

North Carolina Ex Rel. Hailey v. Westmoreland

267 F. Supp. 2d 497 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 18, 2003

This is because government officials (including police officers), when performing duties within the scope of their employment, are immune from suit unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … Therefore, he is entitled to qualified immunity.

Hill v. StubHub, Inc.

219 N.C. App. 227 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 6, 2012

“The language of § 230 sets forth three criteria to qualify for the immunity provided. First, immunity is available only to a ‘provider or user of an interactive computer service.’ 47 U.S.C.A. § 230 (c)(1). … Given that the record clearly establishes that Defendant operates an “interactive computer service” and that Plaintiffs claim is predicated on the theory that Defendant should be held responsible for content, in the form

TYLER v. POOLE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 25, 2019

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 two-step qualified immunity inquiry requires a court to determine (1) whether Plaintiff has alleged facts that make out a violation of a constitutional right and (2) whether that right was clearly established

MacFarlane v. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

244 N.C. 385 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 26, 1956

The General Assembly in 1951, by adopting ch. 1059, Session Laws 1951, now codified as General Statutes ch. 143, art. 31, granted a qualified or limited waiver of its immunity against suits for personal injury or property … It prescribes no rules or regulations to be followed by the newly established court in hearing such claims, nor does it limit or prescribe the procedure except as noted.

Cantrell v. United States

735 F. Supp. 670 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 19, 1988

Plaintiffs acknowledge that there is no evidence which clearly documents a specific request for admission by Puckett on July 12th. … The Fourth Circuit in Currie addressed the issue of whether VA mental health personnel enjoyed qualified statutory immunity prior to the 1986 amendment.

State v. Kinston Charter Acad.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 17, 2021

and that it did not qualify as a “person” for purposes of the False Claims Act. … Board of Trustees of Guilford Technical Community College, 364 N.C. 102, 112 (2010), in which this Court held that the General Assembly had clearly waived sovereign immunity by making the Workers’

Little v. . Miles

204 N.C. 646 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 10, 1933

abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States. … Its sole purpose was to declare to the several states that whatever rights, as you grant or establish them to your own citizens, or as you limit or qualify or impose restrictions on their exercise, the same, neither more

Dobrowolska Ex Rel. Dobrowolska v. Wall

138 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 16, 2000

“The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of clearly establishing the lack of any triable issue of material fact by the record properly before the court.” Johnson v. … In making this determination, it is necessary to assess whether the right allegedly implicated was clearly established at the time of the events in question. County of Sacramento v.

Blackburn v. Trustees of Guilford Technical Community College

733 F. Supp. 2d 659 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 17, 2010

. §§ 12101 et seq., is barred by sovereign immunity. The parties have provided supplemental briefing on the sovereign immunity issue. (Docs. 22, 23, 25, 26.) … To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory firing under Title I, a plaintiff must prove: (1) she has a “disability”; (2) she is a “qualified individual”; and (3) in “discharging [her], [her] employer discriminated

Spell v. McDaniel

591 F. Supp. 1090 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 12, 1984

Defendant City of Fayetteville and the supervisory defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified immunity is DENIED. *1112 (4). … Paragraphs 2, 4 and 6 contain defendants’ assertion of their qualified good faith immunity defense.