Case law

Hensley v. Suttles

167 F. Supp. 3d 753 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 9, 2016

In response, these Defendants claim they are entitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity. … In their summary judgment opening brief, the Defendants make no arguments beyond public official immunity/qualified immunity.

Parker v. Hyatt

196 N.C. App. 489 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 21, 2009

Clearly, the legislature intended § 113-136(1) to pertain to all portions of § 113-136 in order to establish constitutional parameters to the authority given to protectors and inspectors. … Based on our determination, we need not address defendant’s argument regarding good faith qualified immunity.

Blevins v. Denny

114 N.C. App. 766 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 1994

Similarly, the Court concluded that denial of a public official’s claim of qualified immunity from suit, to the extent that it turns on the legal questions of whether the conduct complained of violated “clearly established … In Mitchell , the United States Supreme Court went on to explain that entitlement [to qualified immunity] is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively

Boyd v. Robeson County

169 N.C. App. 460 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 5, 2005

Qualified Immunity The detention officers next argue that summary judgment should have been granted on the § 1983 claims based on qualified immunity. 4 *479 The United States Supreme Court has held that “[t]he threshold inquiry … a court must undertake in a qualified immunity analysis is whether plaintiffs allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation.”

Golden Rule Insurance v. Long

113 N.C. App. 187 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 23, 1993

In order to defeat the qualified immunity, plaintiff had to show that defendant violated some clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. … This standard determines if further proceedings are barred by qualified immunity by examining the law in existence at the time of the offense to determine if it contained “clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable

Bell v. Dawson

144 F. Supp. 2d 454 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 20, 2001

As discussed above, government officials performing discretionary functions are entitled to qualified immunity from *461 liability for civil damages to the extent that “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … [Qualified immunity is an immunity from suit, and not merely a defense to liability....

Tillery v. Kalinski

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 23, 2020

To overcome the qualified immunity defense at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must have shown facts that make out a violation of a constitutional right, and the right at issue must have been “clearly established … The right at issue is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes if: [t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official

Price v. Dixon

961 F. Supp. 894 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 21, 1997

Qualified immunity operates to release government officials from suit if it cannot be shown that their conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person in their position would have … Without expressly deciding this issue, however, the court finds that qualified immunity is appropriate based on the “clearly established law” analysis.

State Ex Rel. Jacobs v. Sherard

36 N.C. App. 60 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 18, 1978

Contending that prosecutorial immunity may be only “qualified,” or malice-destroyed, defendant relies on the following language in State v. … Swanson’s grant of only qualified immunity to public officers does not affect the general grant of absolute immunity to district attorneys.

Cooper v. Brunswick County Sheriff's Department

896 F. Supp. 2d 432 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 27, 2012

Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Fowler v. Valencourt

108 N.C. App. 106 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 1, 1992

We will first address the issue of qualified immunity. … , in light of clearly established law and the information the [arresting] officers possessed.’

King v. Jefferies

402 F. Supp. 2d 624 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 25, 2005

clearly established answers. … “If the law did not put the officer on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful,” qualified immunity should be granted. Saucier, 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. at 2156.

Hyatt v. Town of Lake Lure

225 F. Supp. 2d 647 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 26, 2002

Defendants argue in their reply brief for the first time that they are also covered by qualified immunity in that they have not violated any clearly established rights. … Qualified Immunity In their reply brief, the Defendants raise for the first time the defense of qualified immunity from suit.

Dobson v. Harris

352 N.C. 77 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 16, 2000

App. 660 , 233 S.E.2d 624 (1977) (summary judgment appropriately entered against the plaintiff where the defendant supported motion by establishing affirmative defense of qualified privilege, and the plaintiff, who thereafter … In her answer defendant Harris asserted the affirmative defense of “qualified immunity,” or, more precisely, a statutory, good-faith immunity based upon her compliance with N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-543 and -550.

Davis v. Durham City Schools

91 N.C. App. 520 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 4, 1988

The affidavit of the police officer who investigated the matter, however, clearly establishes that the decision to prosecute was made solely by the officer based upon the results of his investigation, and the principal was … of the immunity contemplated by the statute.

Henderson Amusement, Inc. v. Good

172 F. Supp. 2d 751 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 2, 2001

Even if this officer’s purported conduct had violated a clearly established rule of law (which no one can argue that it did), he would still be entitled to immunity if he reasonably believed his conduct was lawful. … If it is undisputed that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time, the defendant asserting a qualified-immunity defense may still be immune from damages for violation of that right if, under the circumstances

Fares v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service

29 F. Supp. 2d 259 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 27, 1998

Qualified Immunity Individual Defendants argue that, at the very least, they are all shielded from Plaintiffs’ Bivens claims by qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity holds that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Armstrong v. City of Greensboro

190 F. Supp. 3d 450 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 6, 2016

They also argue for *464 dismissal based on qualified immunity, asserting Plaintiff failed to plead sufficiently that Daughtry deprived him of his “clearly established constitutional rights.” … An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity if he has violated a clearly established constitutional right. See Pearson, 555 U.S. at 232 , 129 S.Ct. 808 .

Morrison-Tiffin v. Hampton

117 N.C. App. 494 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 3, 1995

The individual defendants have asserted the defense of qualified immunity. A. Equal Protection 1. … The test for qualified immunity was set forth in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 73 L.

Lenzer v. Flaherty

106 N.C. App. 496 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 1992

immunity because their conduct was not clearly unlawful under existing precedent. … In general, qualified immunity protects government officials from personal liability for performing discretionary functions to the extent that such conduct does not violate “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional