Case law

Evans v. United Services Automobile Ass'n

142 N.C. App. 18 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 6, 2001

The protection given to matters prepared in anticipation of trial, or “work product,” is not a privilege, but a “qualified immunity.” Willis v. Power Co., 291 N.C. 19, 35 , 229 S.E.2d 191, 201 (1976). … Consequently, we do not believe that material prepared in the course of the investigatory process is normally entitled to the Rule 26 qualified work product immunity.

Estate of Fennell Ex Rel. Fennell v. Stephenson

354 N.C. 327 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 9, 2001

The facts do not establish a genuine issue of material fact as to either of the two elements which Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing to defeat Stephenson’s motion. … This Court has also clearly stated that when a plaintiff sues a state officer for violating the North Carolina Constitution, he must sue the officer in his official capacity.

Farmer v. Troy Univ.

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 4, 2022

¶ 11 The doctrine of sovereign immunity, establishing that a sovereign cannot be sued without its consent, see Alden v. … Justice Iredell did, in the light of history and experience and the established order of things, the views of [Hamilton and Iredell] were clearly right,—as the people of the United States in their sovereign

ET & WNC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. Currie

248 N.C. 560 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 30, 1958

When we consider a claim of immunity from taxation, we must come to grips with realities, not shadows. … The theory, which once won a qualified approval, that a tax on income is legalty or economically a tax on its source, is no longer tenable.”

Bynum v. Wilson County

228 N.C. App. 1 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 18, 2013

given that the operation of the register of deeds office “is clearly a governmental function for which the county enjoys immunity from suit for negligence.” … According to well-established North Carolina law, a business owner is liable for the negligent maintenance of buildings in which customers may pay their bills. 4 For example, in Lamm v.

Head v. Adams Farm Living, Inc.

242 N.C. App. 546 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 18, 2015

In the present case, Defendant has clearly established a nondiscriminatory reason for Plaintiff's discharge. … in general terms-how the flu vaccine had the potential to adversely affect her immune system.

State v. Williams

305 N.C. 656 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 2, 1982

Grant of immunity in court proceedings, — (a.) … (c) In a jury trial the judge must inform the jury of the grant of immunity and the order to testify prior to the testimony of the witness under the grant of immunity.

Foust v. Hughes

21 N.C. App. 268 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 17, 1974

FROM THE ORDER ALLOWING DEFENDANT BOSWELL’S MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(b)(6) Plaintiff alleged that defendant Boswell was at all times mentioned in the complaint “a magistrate of the District Court, duly appointed, qualified … “This immunity applies even when the judge is accused of acting maliciously and corruptly, and ‘it is not for the protection or benefit of a malicious or corrupt judge, but for the benefit of the public, whose interest it

Carrington v. Brown

136 N.C. App. 554 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 15, 2000

Defendant answered, alleging several defenses including lack of service, statute of limitations, sovereign and official immunity, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. … While this term clearly refers to elected department heads, it does not refer to the governor.

Paquette v. County of Durham

155 N.C. App. 415 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 31, 2002

The relationship of employer and employee is essentially contractual in its nature, and should be determined by the rules governing the establishment of contracts, express or implied. Hollowell v. … Our Supreme Court has stated that “a pleading should clearly state the capacity in which the defendant is being sued.” Mullis v. Sechrest, 347 N.C. 548, 554 , 495 S.E.2d 721, 724 (1998).

Kennedy v. Haywood County

158 N.C. App. 526 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 17, 2003

“The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of establishing that there is no triable issue of material fact.” DeWitt v. Eveready Battery Co., 355 N.C. 672, 681 , 565 S.E.2d 140, 146 (citing Nicholson v. … However, “[w]aiver of sovereign immunity may not be lightly inferred and State statutes waiving this immunity, being in derogation of the sovereign right to immunity, must be strictly construed.” Guthrie v.

Johnson v. North Carolina

905 F. Supp. 2d 712 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 17, 2012

This court, therefore, will evaluate Defendants’ sovereign immunity *720 defenses pursuant to the framework established in Rule 12(b)(1). III. Analysis A. Federal Claims 1. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 a. … To establish a prima facie case under Section 510, a plaintiff must show “(1) that he is a member of the protected class, i.e., a participant in an employee benefit plan; (2) that he was qualified for the job; and (3) that

Department of Transportation v. Blue

147 N.C. App. 596 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 18, 2001

Nevertheless, NCDOT asserts the defense of sovereign immunity. “Sovereign immunity is a theory or defense established to protect a sovereign or state as well as its officials and agents from suit in certain instances.” … Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, “[t]he State of North Carolina is immune from suit unless and until it expressly consents to be sued.” State v. Taylor, 322 N.C. 433, 435 , 368 S.E.2d 601, 602 (1988).

Lail Ex Rel. Jestes v. Cleveland County Board of Education

183 N.C. App. 554 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 5, 2007

seeking summary judgment makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce a forecast of evidence demonstrating specific facts, *558 as opposed to allegations, showing that he can at least establish … Stat. § 115C-42, a school board can only waive its governmental immunity where it procures insurance through a company or corporation licensed and authorized to issue *561 insurance in this State or a qualified insurer as

Meinck v. City of Gastonia

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 2, 2019

(Emphasis supplied) The City contends the quoted endorsement “clearly and unambiguously retains Gastonia’s governmental immunity.” … This hypothetical clause clearly excludes coverage in two separate circumstances: first, where the purchase of liability coverage otherwise would waive sovereign immunity or governmental immunity, which are long-standing

Howard v. Food Lion, Inc.

232 F. Supp. 2d 585 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 23, 2002

Illinois State Bd. of Elections, 268 F.3d 517 , 522 (7th Cir.2001) (concluding that members of the state board of elections qualified for absolute immunity); Jones v. … To qualify for injunctive relief, a plaintiff must establish that she has sustained “irreparable injury, a requirement that cannot be met where there is no showing of any real or immediate threat that the plaintiff will be

Allmond v. Goodnight

230 N.C. App. 413 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 19, 2013

Public Official Immunity a. Availability of Public Official Immunity According to well-established North Carolina law, law enforcement officers such as Defendant are public officials for immunity-related purposes. … In the event that a jury was to believe this evidence, Defendant would clearly be entitled to prevail.

Fowler v. Valencourt

334 N.C. 345 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 30, 1993

’s claims for assault and false arrest and imprisonment, and qualified immunity on the part of Officer Valencourt. … “When two statutes-apparently overlap, it is well established that the statute special and particular shall control over the statute general in nature, even if the general statute is more recent, unless it clearly appears

Diggs v. Novant Health, Inc.

177 N.C. App. 290 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 2, 2006

Harris-Offutt is qualified to render expert testimony under Rule 702(b)(2) and that prior case law establishes that she may testify regarding medical causation. … Rule 26(b)(3) provides that documents prepared “in anticipation of litigation” are afforded a qualified immunity from discovery.

Hubbard v. County of Cumberland

143 N.C. App. 149 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 17, 2001

of sovereign immunity.” … Defendant County clearly has a statutory duty to abide by the terms of the budget ordinance which it approves.