Case law

In re A.P.

165 N.C. App. 841 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 17, 2004

Accordingly, respondent asserts that “he clearly has a right to pursue the present appeal.” However, DSS disputes respondent’s assertion. N.C. Gen. … The concept of in loco parentis has been addressed in the context of whether parental immunity exists in tort actions. For example, Liner v. Brown, 117 N.C.

Leonard v. Bell

254 N.C. App. 694 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 1, 2017

The sole question on appeal is whether defendants qualify as public officials entitled to immunity from suit in their individual capacities. … West and Medley are only relevant in this case to establish that the DAC has a duty to provide health services to inmates.

Eidogen-Sertanty, Inc. v. Univ. of N.C.

2018 NCBC 127 · North Carolina Business Court · Dec 11, 2018

“The concept of sovereign immunity is so firmly established that it should not and cannot be waived by indirection or by procedural rule. … In short, the TSPA does not clearly or unmistakably waive sovereign immunity for claims of trade-secret misappropriation.

Evans v. Pitt County Department of Social Services

972 F. Supp. 2d 778 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 18, 2013

Accordingly, a qualified immunity defense “involves a two-step inquiry, asking first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.” Id. (quotation omitted). … violation sufficient to overcome qualified immunity.

Jones v. Buchanan

164 F. Supp. 2d 734 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 21, 2001

Inasmuch as the qualified-immunity analysis makes such disputes immaterial (for the reasons discussed infra), summary judgment is appropriate because no genuine issues of material fact remain for trial. … Plaintiff argues that there are various issues of disputed fact in this case that foreclose summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. Hi * * * * Plaintiffs contentions misconceive the law of qualified immunity.

Stott v. Martin

783 F. Supp. 970 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 12, 1992

It therefore reversed the district court’s order on the qualified immunity issue. Id. In Echevarria v. … defendants’ actions were protected by qualified immunity. 25 IV.

Campbell v. Town of Southern Pines

401 F. Supp. 2d 480 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 21, 2005

Defendants also briefly raised a defense of qualified immunity, but the Court rejected it by pointing to Beardsley v. Webb, 30 F.3d 524, 530-31 (4th Cir.1994). … Galloway and Klingenschmidt now contend that the Court’s decision not to grant *484 their request for qualified immunity was incorrect and ask that the Court reconsider that part of its prior decision.

Smith v. First Union Corporation

North Carolina Industrial Commission · Oct 4, 1995

Further, the documents in this category were created in the normal course of business, and therefore not subject to the qualified immunity provided by the trial preparation exception of Rule 26(b)(3). Id . … Further, certain documents in this category were created in the normal course of business, and are therefore not subject to the qualified immunity provided by the trial preparation exception of Rule 26(b)(3). Id .

Kirkpatrick v. Town of Nags Head

213 N.C. App. 132 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 5, 2011

Given these factors and the well-established policy providing for the availability of governmental immunity in the absence of a clear statutory mandate to the contrary, Hodges v. … If no definition is given, non-technical words are to be given their meaning in ordinary speech, unless the context clearly indicates another meaning was intended.

N.C. Bar and Tavern Ass'n v. Stein

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 22, 2025

For the reasons set forth herein, plaintiffs have failed to establish that they qualify for recovery under the Emergency 2 Plaintiffs also asserted claims for constitutional and regulatory takings. … In crafting the Emergency Management Act, the General Assembly clearly contemplated situations under which affected persons could receive compensation.

State v. Clifton

197 N.C. App. 232 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 19, 2009

Instead, he requested an instruction on "witness with immunity or quasi immunity." … When the trial court noted that Butler was not granted immunity, defendant argued that Butler had testified in accordance with a plea bargain, and he believed "that would qualify."

State v. Allison

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 12, 2025

This Court clearly stated, “[t]o resolve this case, we must therefore examine what is permitted under the castle doctrine.” Id. at 521. … The castle doctrine provides immunity from criminal and civil liability for qualifying occupants, and the erroneous instructions here foreclosed defendant’s ability to argue, or that the jury could consider, that his actions

Archer v. Rockingham County

144 N.C. App. 550 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 3, 2001

Sovereign immunity “is firmly established in our law today, and by legislation has been recognized by the General Assembly as the public policy of the State.” Steelman v. … “It is well established that the State is immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, until and unless it consents to be sued.” Slade v. Vernon, 110 N.C. App. 422, 426 , 429 S.E.2d 744, 746 (1993).

Carl v. State

192 N.C. App. 544 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 2, 2008

Facts In 1997, the General Assembly authorized SHP to offer LTC Benefits.to State employees, retirees, and retired local government workers, and their qualified dependents, on a voluntary, self-pay basis. 1997 N.C. … App. 426, 430 , 573 S.E.2d 517, 519 (2002) (“It is well established that sovereign immunity does not protect the state or its counties against claims brought against them directly under the North Carolina Constitution.”),

Ray v. Lewis Hauling & Excavating, Inc.

145 N.C. App. 94 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 17, 2001

EMW’s are accorded qualified immunity while performing the governmental functions as set out in the EMA. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 166A-14 (1995). *97 D. … The section then goes on to provide qualified immunity to certain entities and individuals named in the Article.

Byrd v. Avco Corp.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 20, 2026

App. 687 (2011), establishes a bright-line rule that appellate jurisdiction can never lie from an interlocutory order denying reconsideration. But Zairy does not go that far. … Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 208–09 (1978) (collecting cases). An exception to this general rule exists where an interlocutory order affects a substantial right. Davis v.

Stahl v. Bowden

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 20, 2020

Nonetheless, a party claiming the protection of statutory immunity must satisfy “all of the requirements” of the statute granting the claimed immunity in order to establish a substantial right entitling him to an immediate … A telecommunicator is a “person qualified to provide 911 call taking employed by a PSAP.

Beroth Oil Co. v. N.C. Dep't of Transp.

256 N.C. App. 401 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 21, 2017

"[T]he doctrine of sovereign immunity is not a constitutional right; it is a common law theory or defense established by [our Supreme] Court.... … First, a party's subsequent position must be 'clearly inconsistent' with its earlier position.

Mullis v. Sechrest

347 N.C. 548 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 6, 1998

This allegation establishes that defendant Sechrest is an agent of defendant Board. Further, plaintiffs set forth only one claim for relief in their complaint. … Thus, in order for defendant Sechrest to have an opportunity to prepare a proper defense, the pleading should have clearly stated the capacity in which he was being sued.

Epps v. Duke University, Inc.

122 N.C. App. 198 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 16, 1996

However, denial of a motion for summary judgment “ ‘on the grounds of sovereign and qualified immunity is immediately appealable.’ ” Id. (citation omitted). … The foregoing restates the law of official immunity as established by our Supreme Court.