Case law

North Carolina Ex Rel. Cooper v. Tennessee Valley Authority

439 F. Supp. 2d 486 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 21, 2006

Consequently, TVA has failed to establish its entitlement, pursuant to the Loeffler-Burr mode of analysis, to an implied limitation of its otherwise broad waiver of sovereign immunity on the basis of grave interference with … TVA has failed to clearly establish any of the three bases for recognizing an implied limitation on the TVA Act’s otherwise broad waiver of sovereign immunity. “ ‘In the absence of such showing, it must be presumed that when

Herring Ex Rel. Marshall v. Liner

163 N.C. App. 534 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 6, 2004

party seeking summary judgment makes the required showing, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to produce a forecast of evidence demonstrating specific facts, as opposed to allegations, showing that he can at least establish … 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.”

Ferrell v. Department of Transportation

334 N.C. 650 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 8, 1993

It is well established that a state and its agencies may not be sued unless sovereign immunity is waived. Guthrie v. State Ports Authority, 307 N.C. 522, 534 , 299 S.E.2d 618, 625 (1983). … The Minnesota Supreme Court stated: While reconveyance is clearly provided for, the intended reconveyance price is unclear.

In Re the Appeal of Chapel Hill Day Care Center, Inc.

144 N.C. App. 649 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 17, 2001

Stat. § 105-278.4 sets out the requirements an establishment must meet to qualify for educational tax exempt status. … Moreover, the relevant statutory provisions are clearly distinguishable.

Turner v. Randolph County, NC

912 F. Supp. 182 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 11, 1995

However, this court is bound to apply the current law as established by the Fourth Circuit. … Applying the law as established by Paroline, the individual defendants can be held individually and personally *186 liable for violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq.

HOLMAN v. WIGGS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 30, 2024

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … In evaluating qualified immunity, courts consider “(1) whether the plaintiff has established the violation of a constitutional right, and (2) whether that right was clearly established at the

Est. of Graham v. Lambert

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 22, 2024

To do so, the plaintiff must plead “facts that, if taken as true, are sufficient to establish a waiver of immunity.” Id. at 48 (cleaned up). … If the government seeks summary judgment on immunity grounds, it bears the “burden of clearly establishing the lack of any triable issue of fact by the record properly before the court.” See Moore v.

Clegg

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 29, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that 2 Even if the Court assumes that Clegg didn’t know his license was … The Fourth Circuit has stated: The basic rules of § 1983 [qualified] immunity are well known.

Ladd v. Funderburk

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 18, 2022

However, denial of a motion for summary judgment ‘on the grounds of sovereign and qualified immunity is immediately appealable.’ ” Epps v. Duke Univ., 122 N.C. … FUNDERBURK 2022-NCCOA-676 Opinion of the Court “three-step inquiry” established in Estate of Williams v.

Bowles Automotive, Inc. v. North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles

203 N.C. App. 19 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 16, 2010

In other words, claimants are those persons who can establish an ownership interest in the seized property. … It seems obvious that garage owners who are storing seized property for the seizing entity do not qualify as “claimants” under the statutory definition.

State v. . Pearson

97 N.C. 434 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1887

It was their duty to challenge his vote on the day of election, if they had reason to believe or suspect that he was not qualified. … But their decision in favor of the right of a party to vote, in the absence of fraud and collusion, must have the effect of securing the voter immunity from criminal liability, if it should afterwards appear that lie did

The News & Observer Publ'g Co. v. McCrory

251 N.C. App. 211 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 20, 2016

In light of our well-established precedent regarding interlocutory appeals, only Defendants’ sovereign immunity contentions could provide them a path to immediate appellate review. … [the] affirmative defense was clearly before the trial court. . . .

Wynn v. Frederick

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 15, 2023

Additionally, we hold, in accordance with our established precedent, that judicial immunity applies to official and individual capacity claims. We therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. … Our case law, however, clearly establishes that judicial immunity protects 10 In an official capacity claim, the plaintiff “seeks recovery from the entity of which the public servant defendant is an agent.”

Harwood v. Johnson

326 N.C. 231 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 7, 1990

of the Parole Commission because she was acting pursuant to their direction. *238 North Carolina has a well-established common law doctrine of sovereign immunity which prevents a claim for relief against the State except … These allegations, if shown to be true, would entitle plaintiff to relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 since this statute clearly established a statutory right of which members of the Commission as reasonable officials should

Bates v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Historic Landmarks Comm'n

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 2, 2024

LANDMARKS COMM’N Opinion of the Court taken as true, are sufficient to establish a waiver by the State of governmental immunity. Fullwood, 250 N.C. … In such cases, “[b]ecause malice encompasses intent, . . . if a party alleges an intentional tort claim, the doctrine of qualified immunity does not immunize public officials . . . from suit in their individual capacities

Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.

951 F. Supp. 1211 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 8, 1996

Furthermore, the Supreme Court “has emphasized that ‘[t]he publisher of a newspaper has no special immunity from the application of general laws. … The three part test established by the Fourth Circuit in LaRouche is satisfied in this case.

General Electric Company v. Turner

275 N.C. 493 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 11, 1969

However, the making of an “irrevocable decision” in an important business controversy, after hearing one side and refusing to hear the other, does not qualify as commendable procedure. … In the absence of consent or waiver, this immunity against suit is absolute and unqualified.” Schloss v. Highway Comm., supra. “The State is immune from suit unless and until it has expressly consented to be sued.

HOELZER v. THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 13, 2023

“Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal-capacity liability for civil damages under § 1983, ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory … For the following reasons, the Court finds that such right was not clearly established, and that Defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. The Supreme Court in Hope v.

Wilson v. Wilson

203 N.C. App. 45 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 16, 2010

App. 649 , 379 S.E.2d 45 (1989), established the rule that a party’s “failure to timely perfect [an] appeal constitutes an abandonment of the appeal.” Woods, 93 N.C. App. at 652 , 379 S.E.2d at 47 . … “Qualified beneficiary” is defined at N.C. Gen. Stat. § 36C-1-103(15). Defendants do not argue on appeal that Plaintiffs are not qualified beneficiaries.

Geiger v. Guilford College Community Volunteer Firemen's Ass'n

668 F. Supp. 492 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 25, 1987

Defendant is thus entitled to sovereign immunity. A county’s sovereign immunity is absolute unless a statute modifies the immunity. … And as the court has already stated, the facts of this case do not establish any party’s negligence as a matter of law.