Case law

Irving v. The City of Raleigh

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

To escape dismissal of a complaint on qualified immunity grounds, plaintiffs must allege defendants violated a right that was clearly established at the time of the violation. Evans v. … Because plaintiffs cannot show a violation of a clearly established right, the SEU defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Cedarbrook Residential Ctr.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 21, 2021

The plurality opinion’s conclusion will lead to a stampede of nonjusticiable suits against regulatory state agencies which are clearly barred by sovereign immunity except for the limited waiver of that immunity … ¶ 51 The party asserting a claim must establish cause.

Farmer v. Troy Univ.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 2, 2021

¶ 36 Our Supreme Court’s decision in Smith is clearly distinguishable from Hyatt III and the case before us. … ¶ 46 It is well established that a plaintiff may not proceed with a claim directly  FARMER V.

State Ex Rel. Hannon v. Grizzard

89 N.C. 115 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 5, 1883

In defining political immunities, however, both terms indicate a permanent and retained home. Thus, remarks GastoN, J. “By a residence in the county, the constitution intends a domicil in that county. … Justice Stoky, as “the place where a person lives or has his home,” that is, as he adds, where one has his true, fixed, permanent home and principal establishment, and to which, -whenever he is absent, he has the intention

Wray v. City of Greensboro

370 N.C. 41 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 18, 2017

Although there is no "mandate that a complaint use any particular language" and although a complaint "need only allege facts that, if taken as true, are sufficient to establish a waiver ... of ... immunity," Fabrikant v. … As the Policy clearly states, "this resolution is not to be interpreted as [a] waiver of any rights the City has against any party." 3 When read in accordance with its plain meaning, the Policy itself clearly states that

State v. Morgan

60 N.C. App. 614 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 15, 1983

The separate provisions of Article 61 establish a pretrial and trial procedure designed to provide full and adequate prior disclosure of the prosecution’s arrangement with its witness to the Attorney General and trial court … The use immunity granted to Harry Shelton is clearly among the “arrangements” with a witness within the scope of G.S. 15A-1054.

Trustees of the Goldsboro Graded School v. Broadhurst

109 N.C. 228 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1891

Whether this is sufficiently done or not is a question we need not now decide, it is not necessary to do so, because, granting, for the present purpose, that it is, we are clearly of opinion that the tax cannot be levied … Hence, when it is deemed expedient and desirable that a graded school shall be established in a particular township, a debt for the purpose can be created only with the sanction of a majority of the qualified voters thereof

Welch Contracting, Inc. v. North Carolina Department of Transportation

175 N.C. App. 45 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 20, 2005

Here, clearly, defendants had sufficient notice of the basis upon which our Court might rule. Plaintiff made only one assignment of error, and that assignment of error referenced the order of the trial court. … in this State: It is an established principle of jurisprudence, resting on grounds of sound public policy, that a state may not be sued in its own courts or elsewhere unless it has consented by statute to be sued or has

Smith v. Scotland Cnty.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 16, 2025

for . . . governmental immunity[ … “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 a waiver of immunity.” Evans v. Hous.

Calliste v. The City of Charlotte, North Carolina

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 29, 2024

But public official immunity is unavailable “to officers who violate clearly established rights.” Bailey v. Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731, 742 (4th Cir. 2003). … right, was thus not insulated by qualified immunity, and a fortiori not entitled to public official immunity.

Robertson v. Huffman

144 F. Supp. 2d 447 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 23, 2001

Although the Eleventh Amendment, by its terms, applies only to suits brought against a state by “Citizens of another *452 State,” it is well established that “an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal … It is well-established that Congress did not abrogate the states’ sovereign immunity when it created a private right of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

Aspen Specialty Ins. Co. v. Nucor Corp.

2022 NCBC 19 · North Carolina Business Court · Apr 22, 2022

Information generated after that date, it reasoned, was subject to work product qualified immunity. Id. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed. Id. at 534. 26. … Thus, Wachovia Bank establishes that reserves are not categorically off limits in discovery as long as they are not shielded by privilege or qualified immunity.

Millsaps v. Iredell County District Attorney's Office

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 11, 2025

Qualified Immunity Also, even if the Court had found that Hillard lacked probable cause for Plaintiff’s arrest (which he did not), it would find that Hillard has 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.” Knibbs v.

State v. Pickens

346 N.C. 628 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 24, 1997

As the statements at issue clearly fall within established exceptions, this assignment of error is overruled. … Thus, the evidence taken in the light most favorable to the State was clearly sufficient to establish that defendant was present at the scene with Arrington and that the two were carrying out a common plan.

Houck & Sons, Inc. v. Transylvania County

852 F. Supp. 442 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 18, 1993

Contrary to the assertions in its response, North Carolina case law conclusively establishes that plaintiff carries the burden of establishing that defendants have waived their governmental immunity by purchasing insurance … Thus, plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of establishing a waiver of defendants’ governmental immunity, and all three defendants are therefore entitled to governmental immunity from plaintiffs tortious interference with

In re Jones

556 B.R. 219 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 22, 2016

Second, the qualifier to this exception — that proceedings seeking to determine the division of property of the estate are not immune from the stay (put simply, the exception to the exception) — applies only to property of … On the contrary, since *224 domestic support obligations are not dis-chargeable, there is no reason to delay proceedings to establish or modify them. Collier ¶ 362.05[2],

Delconte v. State

65 N.C. App. 262 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 6, 1983

All schools described by subsections (1), (2), and (3) would be established educational institutions. Subsection (4) is a general term following a list of specific terms. … Therefore, we hold that G.S. 115C-555(4) refers only to established educational institutions.

Long v. Fowler

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 3, 2020

of immunity. … See Mullis, 347 N.C. at 552, 495 S.E.2d at 724 (“[P]leadings should . . . clearly state[] the capacity in which [defendants are] being sued.”).

McCollum v. Robeson County

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Oct 21, 2021

violated were clearly established at the relevant time, and concluded that they were. … clearly established.

Fair v. Stevens

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 8, 2020

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably … Defendant Stephens argues that he should be granted qualified immunity because he did not violate any of Plaintiff’s clearly established rights.