Case law

Argonaut Great Central Insurance v. McDowell County

626 F. Supp. 2d 554 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 20, 2009

Clearly, counsel for plaintiff would not do such things. … Not only is the state court uniquely qualified to determine the issue presented herein, it has already laid the groundwork for decision making inasmuch as it has heard the extensive evidence presented at trial. *566 The natural

Ragan v. County of Alamance

98 N.C. App. 636 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1990

Such a result is clearly not correct. … Stat. § 168A-7 (1987) states that it is discriminatory for a department of State “to refuse to provide reasonable aids and adaptations necessary for a known qualified handicapped person to use or benefit from existing public

Judkins v. Veterans Administration

415 F. Supp. 2d 613 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 28, 2005

The court dismissed the action, holding that plaintiff must pursue his claim through the administrative process established by Congress in 38 U.S.C. § 7101 et seq. Id. at 722. Similarly, in Carney v. G.I. … court further held that 38 U.S.C. § 511 (a) does not foreclose district court review under the APA because “review of payee determinations by the Secretary” are not “subject to review under the alternate scheme of review” established

Wilmington Shipyard, Inc. v. North Carolina State Highway Commission

6 N.C. App. 649 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 17, 1969

in cases where the strictest possible construction was not required to reach the result, is not so clearly and definitely the rule in North Carolina as to compel this Court to take the strictest possible view of G.S. 136 … There is little question that a contract for the establishment of a ferry — which the Commission may undertake by G.S. 136-82 — would be equivalent to the “construction of a highway.” Repair or reconditioning, i.e.

Edwards v. Akion

52 N.C. App. 688 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 7, 1981

The moving party must clearly establish that there is no triable issue of fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Yount v. Lowe, 288 N.C. 90 , 215 S.E. 2d 563 (1975). … As a city is ordinarily immune from tort liability, when it voluntarily waives that immunity by purchasing liability insurance, it obviously does so to protect innocent victims.

Calloway-Durham v. NC Department of Justice

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 22, 2024

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for statutory or constitutional violations so long as they can reasonably believe that their conduct does not violate clearly established law. Harlow v. … A court employs a two-step procedure for determining whether qualified immunity applies that “asks first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.”

Lanier v. Burns

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 29, 2023

qualified immunity. … “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v.

Hodges v. City of Charlotte

214 N.C. 737 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 1, 1939

It is stated in the dissenting opinion that it is not advocated that this long established immunity of governmental units should be abolished and it is recognized therein that whether it should be abolished presents a question … Yet it is advocated that the doctrine be modified by judicial decree, which clearly would be an invasion of the prerogatives of the Legislature.

Gardner v. City of Reidsville

269 N.C. 581 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 8, 1967

It is noted there were other reasons for declaring the act invalid in the Taylor case, in that Article II, Section 7, was violated because there was a grant of privilege and immunity, and further, there was an unlawful delegation … In deciding the case, pertinent principles as to the sovereign police power were clearly and concisely stated by the Court, speaking through Bobbitt, J., as follows: “Legislative power vests exclusively in the general assembly

Pulliam v. City of Greensboro

103 N.C. App. 748 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 20, 1991

(a) A city may establish and revise from time to time schedules of rents, rates, fees, charges, and penalties for the use of or the services furnished by any public enterprise. … Additionally, our courts have clearly stated that in setting rates for public enterprise services, municipalities act in a proprietary role. See Aviation, Inc. v.

State v. Bowes

159 N.C. App. 18 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 15, 2003

However, when Hamilton entered DOC’s custody, DOC determined that Hamilton did not qualify for CYO status under our General Statutes and refused to consider her for immediate parole. … Addressing the issue of the propriety of DOC’s actions, this court held that: It is well established that a judgment of a Superior Court must be honored unless the judgment is void.

Brody v. North Carolina

557 F. Supp. 184 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 11, 1983

It has been established that a state may consent to suit against it in federal court by waiving its eleventh amendment immunity. Parden v. … The third and final step required to establish constructive waiver of eleventh amendment immunity by a state is that the state must be considered to have consented to be sued by entering into the relevant federally regulated

Cleveland Cotton Mills v. Commissioners of Cleveland County

108 N.C. 678 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1891

This distinction is clearly drawn in the authorities cited and in many others that might be added, and is fully sustained by "the reason of the thing." … Brown, supra , to lay down a general rule subversive of the well-established principle that a majority of a body, in the absence of some words clearly showing that a majority of all persons qualified to act as members of

Powell v. Super 8 Motels, Inc.

181 F. Supp. 2d 561 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 13, 2000

The court in Arnold specifically referred to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and stated that the pleadings should be tightened in matters that specifically state allegations of conspiracy, absolute immunity, and to claims plead against … This court finds that the complaint is not clearly frivolous and does indeed state a claim on which relief could be granted. Therefore, defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED. III.

Allen v. . Mills

30 N.C. 473 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 5, 1848

By the 26th ch. 1846, the County of Polk is established and its boundaries prescribed, and by the *475 supplemental Act, cb. 29, its rights, privileges and immunities are secured to it. … By the first section, it is invested with all the rights, privileges, and immunities of other Counties in the State.

Estate of Jada Johnson, L.J., the minor daughter of Jada Johnson, Richard Iwanski, individually, as executor of the Estate of Jada Johnson and guardian of L.J., and Maria Iwanski, individually, as executor of the Estate of Jada Johnson and guardian of L.J. v. Sergeant Timothy Rugg individually, Officer Zacharius Borom, individually, and John and Jane Doe’s 1-100, City of Fayetteville employees and police officers

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 25, 2025

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for statutory or constitutional violations so long as they can reasonably believe that their conduct does not violate clearly established law. … A court employs a two-step procedure for determining whether qualified immunity applies that “‘asks first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.”

STATE v. MCCLURE

2005 NCBC 6 · North Carolina Business Court · Oct 28, 2005

If it is determined that Ross and CBM engaged in an unlawful conspiracy with respect to the remaining claims, liability will be established. … Clearly, actions such as those alleged against defendant McClure would not fall within the immunity provisions.

McCormick v. Hanson Aggregates Southeast, Inc.

164 N.C. App. 459 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 1, 2004

However, we find the following California Supreme Court holding instructive: Permitting a public agency to circumvent the established special statutory procedure by filing an ordinary declaratory relief action against a person … The North Carolina Public Records Act clearly gives the public a right to access records compiled by government agencies. See News and Observer Publ’g Co. v.

Antrican v. Buell

158 F. Supp. 2d 663 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 17, 2001

III.Eleventh Amendment Immunity Defendants first assert that this action is barred under the Eleventh Amendment. … Second, the implementing regulations clearly provide that the state must not discriminate within the categorically needy group.

Norment v. . City of Charlotte

85 N.C. 387 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 5, 1881

If the fact be established upon full proofs that the contemplated school had the support of the greater number “ of the qualified voters of the city,” and those who are authorized and directed to determine the result, of … The rule is very forcibly and clearly laid down in the opinion of Mr. Justice StkoNG in the case of Black v. Commissioners, 99 U. S.