Case law

White v. Cochran

229 N.C. App. 183 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 20, 2013

“[I]tis generally established that a sheriff is a public official entitled to sovereign immunity and, unless the immunity is waived pursuant to a statute, is protected from suit against him in his official capacity.” … Purchase of a Surety Bond As the record clearly reflects, given that Sheriff Cochran, in compliance with N.C. Gen.

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’

Renwick v. News & Observer Publishing Co.

63 N.C. App. 200 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 5, 1983

The Court in Flake then summarized the case law as follows: The decisions in this jurisdiction, as well as others, clearly establish that a publication is libelous per se, or actionable per se, if, when considered alone without … for “pure opinion” established in Gertz .

Reid v. Roberts

112 N.C. App. 222 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 5, 1993

A public officer sued individually is normally immune from liability for “mere negligence.” … The immunity afforded to public officers is qualified. A public officer is shielded from liability unless he engaged in discretionary actions which were allegedly: (1) corrupt, Wiggins v. City of Monroe, 73 N.C.

Smith v. Lane

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 16, 2025

Defendants argue the undisputed evidence establishes that, as a matter of law, governmental immunity bars Plaintiff’s claims. We agree. A. … Conclusion Driving a firetruck on return to the station is clearly a governmental function entitled to immunity.

Clark v. Brown

99 N.C. App. 255 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 3, 1990

The issues presented are whether summary judgment for defendant was appropriate, based on (I) defendant’s affirmative defense of qualified immunity for libel and slander and (II) plaintiff’s failure to show a material issue … Defendant’s firing of a governmental employee was clearly the ‘official act of a public man.’

Providence Volunteer Fire Dep't, Inc. v. Town of Weddington

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 19, 2022

, legislative immunity, public official immunity, and qualified immunity. … Thus, the Town does not qualify for governmental immunity under this threshold inquiry.

Shelton v. Morehead Memorial Hospital

318 N.C. 76 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 29, 1986

Documents and information which are otherwise immune from discovery under § 95 do not, *85 however, lose their immunity because they were transmitted to the board or Tinnell, or both. V. … We have found no case other than Cameron in North Carolina which has applied the defense of qualified privilege in libel actions to render peer review proceedings immune from discovery and introduction into evidence.

Lewis v. Barnhill

267 N.C. 457 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 16, 1966

Its superintendent on the job was not qualified to operate one. Foard relied on CERCO to *462 provide a qualified crane operator and did not undertake to determine Barnhill’s qualifications. … Its job superintendent was not qualified to operate a crane.

Stott v. Martin

725 F. Supp. 1365 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 1989

QUALIFIED IMMUNITY On 9 December 1987 the court entered an order which denied, inter alia, the then defendants’ claim of qualified immunity. … Arias, 831 F.2d 11, 13 (1st Cir.1987) (holding that officials are entitled to “qualified immunity unless, at the time of the dismissal, ‘it was clearly established that employees in the particular positions at issue, in light

Smith v. Walker

845 F. Supp. 2d 673 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 28, 2012

Defendants also contend that they are entitled to qualified immunity, as Plaintiff has not shown a violation of clearly established law. … immunity.

Williams v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Sch. Bd. of Educ.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 17, 2023

And we acknowledge the TCA clearly waived immunity for school-bus accidents. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-300.1(a). That clarity, -8-  WILLIAMS V. … The TCA waived immunity, see Heath, 282 N.C. at 296, 192 S.E.2d at 310, but the EMA qualified the waiver, see N.C. Gen. Stat. § 166A-19.60(a).

Pettiford v. City of Greensboro

556 F. Supp. 2d 512 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 30, 2008

First, the City seeks immunity, at least in part, for the investigative functions “normally performed by a detective or police officer.” (Doc. 10 at 2-5.) These functions are subject, at best, to qualified immunity. … [qualified immunity] of its officers or agents as a defense to liability under § 1983.” Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622, 638 , 100 S.Ct. 1398 , 63 L.Ed.2d 673 (1980).

Chastain v. Arndt

253 N.C. App. 8 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 18, 2017

Chapter 17C of our General Statutes establishes the North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission (“the Commission”). … The Commission has the power to “[e]stablish minimum educational and training standards that must be met in order to qualify for entry level employment and retention as a criminal justice officer[.]” N.C. Gen.

Burgess v. Your House of Raleigh, Inc.

326 N.C. 205 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 7, 1990

The debilitating effects of AIDS come, not from the virus itself, but from these opportunistic diseases that the immune system cannot fight. … Because he does not qualify as a “handicapped person” under the act, he necessarily cannot qualify as a “qualified handicapped person” because that definition assumes, as an initial matter, that one is handicapped.

Estate of Earley Ex Rel. Earley v. Haywood County Department of Social Services

204 N.C. App. 338 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 9, 2010

Defendant argues that the doctrine of governmental immunity establishes a complete defense to Plaintiff’s wrongful death- claim. … However, this Court previously construed similar insurance contract provisions as not establishing a waiver of governmental immunity.

Stewart v. Hunt

598 F. Supp. 1342 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 28, 1984

Rather, a state official sued individually may raise a qualified immunity defense if his conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … However, qualified immunity only protects the individual from civil damages, it does not protect him from suits for injunctive relief. See id.

Mullis v. Sechrest

126 N.C. App. 91 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 6, 1997

App. 44, 58 , 457 S.E.2d 902, 911 , disc. review denied, 341 N.C. 647 , 462 S.E.2d 508 (1995) (“[I]t is well established that public official immunity [a subset of sovereign immunity] is an affirmative defense.”). … statute further requires that “[a]ny contract of insurance purchased pursuant to this section shall be issued by a company or corporation duly licensed and authorized to execute insurance contracts in this State or by a qualified

McFadyen v. Duke University

786 F. Supp. 2d 887 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 2011

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, even if the violation of a constitutional right is established on the facts alleged, “courts must consider whether the right was clearly established at the time such that it would … In addition, at this stage in the case, there are sufficient grounds to conclude that this right was clearly established, and any further qualified immunity analysis would be more appropriate at summary judgment on a factual

In Re Midway Airlines Corp.

283 B.R. 846 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Oct 7, 2002

A bankruptcy court’s findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. Safety-Kleen, Inc. v. Wyche, 274 F.3d 846 , 859 (4th Cir.2001). However, conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. … Courts have devised two tests to determine whether an action qualifies as a proceeding pursuant to a governmental unit’s police or regulatory power. See Chao v.