Case law

Lambert v. Town of Sylva

259 N.C. App. 294 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 1, 2018

App. 680, 684-85, 446 S.E.2d 126, 129 (1994) (“Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded by the defendant. … This is not the law as established by the United States Supreme Court.

Warren v. New Hanover County Board of Education

104 N.C. App. 522 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 19, 1991

To establish a cause of action for wrongful discharge or demotion in violation of the employee’s First Amendment rights, the employee must show first “that the speech complained of qualified as protected speech or activity … Additionally, we find it unnecessary to address defendants’ arguments regarding qualified immunity.

Frink v. Batten

197 N.C. App. 231 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 19, 2009

When the appeal arises from a motion "made on the grounds of sovereign and qualified immunity, such a denial is immediately appealable, because to force a defendant to proceed with a trial from which he should be immune would … A North Carolina sheriff is considered a public official for sovereign immunity purposes, which means waiver of immunity must be established. Summey v. Barker, 142 N.C. App. 688, 691 , 544 S.E.2d 262, 265 (2001).

Costello v. UNIVERSITY OF N. CAR. AT GREENSBORO

394 F. Supp. 2d 752 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 29, 2005

A motion to amend is futile, and thus should be denied, if the proposed amendment "is clearly insufficient because of substantive or procedural considerations." Goewey v. … Thus, the Eleventh Amendment *757 bars Plaintiff's claim for violation of Title II of the ADA unless Congress clearly and validly abrogated the state's immunity. In Wessel v.

Johnson v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPT. OF HEALTH

454 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 29, 2006

The Fourth Circuit has not conclusively established whether a dismissal based on Eleventh Amendment immunity is a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) or for failure to state a claim under … It is also well established that this immunity extends to any state instrumentality that is considered an "arm of the State." Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v.

State v. . Love

229 N.C. 99 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 19, 1948

In the instant cases it might be true that if the fact had been established that the officer was only a “feigned accomplice” without intention to become a criminal, the argument that his credibility could not be assailed … The conditions under which immunity may be claimed and given are clearly set forth in S. v. Luquire, supra. It does not appear in the evidence here that Mr.

Mitchell v. Pruden

251 N.C. App. 554 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 17, 2017

Plaintiffs alleged that defendant’s reference to “competition” was “clearly a reference” to the public charter schools for children of Brunswick County. … It is well established that “a conclusory allegation that a public official acted willfully and wantonly should not be sufficient, by itself, to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Oakwood Acceptance Corp., LLC v. Massengill

162 N.C. App. 199 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 20, 2004

“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.” … Monell and the decisions that followed “[made] it quite clear that, unlike various government officials, municipalities do not enjoy immunity from suit — either absolute or qualified — -under § 1983.” Leatherman v.

Triplett Ex Rel. Triplett v. Triplett

34 N.C. App. 212 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 5, 1977

If the immunity rule in ordinary negligence cases is no longer suited to the times ... we think innovation upon the established law in the field should be accomplished prospectively by legislation rather than retroactively … The intent of the Legislature is clearly stated as to when the law should take effect. Since the cause of action in the instant case accrued on 1 September 1975, it is clear that the statute gives no right of action.

Vereen v. Holden

121 N.C. App. 779 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 5, 1996

Because we conclude that this test fairly, succinctly and clearly states the purpose of legislative immunity, we adopt it as a test in suits against local governments and local officials. *783 Whether an action is legislative … Applying the Scott rule to the case before us, it is clearly too early in the proceedings to determine the applicability of legislative immunity.

Research Triangle Institute v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

962 F. Supp. 61 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 14, 1997

. § 1331 , “[t]he federal question jurisdictional statute is not a general waiver of sovereign immunity; it merely establishes a subject matter that is within the competence of federal courts to entertain.” Whittle v. … Here, Plaintiff has instituted its action against the Board, an entity clearly separate from the Federal Reserve Banks (“Banks”).

Happel v. Guilford Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 21, 2025

The Framers clearly intended federal law to trump conflicting state law, even state constitutional law. … (conditioning liability immunity for program planners and qualified persons on their “reasonabl[e] belie[f]” that the recipient was in the geographic area covered by the declaration).

Estate of Williams ex rel. Overton v. Pasquotank County Parks & Recreation Department

366 N.C. 195 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 24, 2012

The General Assembly therefore declares that the public good and the general welfare of the citizens of this State require adequate recreation programs, that the creation, establishment, and operation of parks and recreation … Here the Court of Appeals made a passing reference to section 160A-351, which is clearly relevant to the question of whether defendants’ conduct— maintaining and operating the Swimming Hole at Fun Junktion — is a governmental

State v. Rogers

121 N.C. App. 273 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 2, 1996

The evidence in the record before us was sufficient to establish defendant’s presence and participation in the various drug transactions. … Immunity Defendant argues that two of the State’s witnesses, Mark Rook and Gary Francis, testified at defendant’s trial under defective grants of immunity.

Cline v. James Bane Home Bldg.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 15, 2021

sovereign, absolute or qualified immunity, the denial of a motion for summary judgment is immediately appealable.” … The insurance policy at issue there contained the following exclusion: “this policy provides coverage only for occurrences or wrongful acts for which the defense of governmental immunity is clearly not applicable

Buchanan v. Hight

133 N.C. App. 299 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 18, 1999

In the amended answer, defendant denied the allegations and asserted the defenses of qualified immunity and governmental immunity. … Judgment on the pleadings is proper where the movant clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Trust Co. v. Elzey, 26 N.C.

Middlesex Construction Corp. v. State Ex Rel. State Art Museum Building Commission

307 N.C. 569 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 8, 1983

. § 143-135.3, arguing that in light of the Smith decision, to hold that the statute establishes mandatory procedures applicable to plaintiffs claim would violate due process and equal protection; that is, G.S. § 143-135.3 … The Smith majority was clearly concerned with the constitutionality of its decision, and Justice Lake, in his dissenting opinion, discussed the question in some detail.

Worthington v. Commodity Credit Corp.

157 F. Supp. 497 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 9, 1957

By his own testimony, it is established that Mr. … Thus the direction to use to the maximum extent is qualified, and instead of being a directed policy in itself becomes a condition precedent to the availability of other possible action on the part of the defendant.

Stone v. City of Fayetteville

3 N.C. App. 261 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 18, 1968

Asheville, supra, clearly established governmental immunity for North Carolina municipal corporations from wrongful death actions arising from the operation of a public sewerage system. Williams v. … Greenville, supra, appears to establish the principle for a facility maintained by a city for sewerage and drainage. James v. Charlotte, supra, applies the doctrine to a sanitation department maintained by a city.

Wilkerson v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.

151 N.C. App. 332 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 16, 2002

It is only when an individual pleads qualified immunity or public officer immunity that the distinction between discretionary and ministerial acts is important. … This testimony clearly supports the finding that the City did not waive its immunity regarding the improvement project.