Case law

State Ex Rel. Cooper v. Ridgeway Brands Manufacturing, LLC

184 N.C. App. 613 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 17, 2007

App. 210, 212 , 245 S.E.2d 558, 560 (1978), this Court explained Rule 15(c): If the effect of the proposed amendment is merely to correct the name of a party already in court, clearly there is no prejudice in allowing the … Moreover, the grant of immunity is not destroyed by suing the agent in his individual capacity. Id. at 1252 .

Higgins v. Mendoza

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 15, 2025

ECU maintained an affiliation agreement with North Carolina State Highway Patrol (“NCSHP”) for an internship program for qualified college students interested in careers in law enforcement. … Trooper Mendoza argues that he is entitled to public official immunity.

Ivey v. North Carolina Prison Department

252 N.C. 615 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 10, 1960

The doctrine of governmental immunity forbade the injured party to sue. This rule of governmental immunity was applied in Clodfelter v. … Governmental immunity was waived in a limited area.

Simmons v. Corizon Health, Inc.

122 F. Supp. 3d 255 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 4, 2015

In Beckles-Palomares , the North Carolina Court of Appeals applied established law that N.C. GemStat. § 160A-296 waives the governmental immunity doctrine. 688 S.E.2d at 242-43 . … Gen.Stat. § 153A-225 — establishes a waiver of governmental immunity. See Meyer v.

L.P. v. Wake County Board of Education

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 15, 2021

Public school officials are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity for § 1983 claims unless the official (1) violates a federal statutory or constitutional right and (2) the right was clearly established and one … The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Moffett found that a public school official was not entitled to qualified immunity when the official violated a disabled student’s clearly established constitutional right to liberty

Reeves v. N.C. Department of Correction

North Carolina Industrial Commission · Sep 9, 2011

The Act is in partial derogation of sovereign immunity, see Stone v. N.C. … as an expert witness is willing to testify that the medical care did not comply with the applicable standard of care, or if the pleading does not allege facts establishing negligence under the existing common-law doctrine

McKnight v. Wakefield Missionary Baptist Church, Inc.

2021 NCBC 35 · North Carolina Business Court · Jun 14, 2021

Immunity 35. … . § 61-1(b)(7) (establishing an exception to immunity if the trustee “[i]s sued in an action that would qualify as a derivative action if the organization were a for-profit corporation”).

Durham Land Owners Ass'n v. County of Durham

177 N.C. App. 629 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 6, 2006

or its counties are barred by sovereign immunity. … “[O]ur courts have clearly stated that in setting rates for public enterprise services, municipalities act in a proprietary role.” Pulliam v. City of Greensboro, 103 N.C.

Disher v. Weaver

308 F. Supp. 2d 614 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 26, 2004

However, qualified immunity is only applicable when the actions taken were objectively reasonable “in light of the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time.” Anderson v. … For that reason, qualified immunity does not apply or entitle the individual Defendants to a grant of summary judgment.

Perry v. Commissioners of Franklin County

148 N.C. 521 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 21, 1908

Commissioners of Buncombe, ante 248, held that this restriction on the amount of the poll tax contained in section 1 shall be given the significance which its terms clearly import — that the State and county capitation tax … As to taxation within these special districts, it is theirs to observe or disregard the equation established by Article V in reference to State and county taxes, and to exceed or abide by the limit established in said article

MACK

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 18, 2026

However, “[t]he doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In analyzing qualified immunity, the Court must consider (1) “whether a constitutional violation occurred,” and (2) “whether the right violated was ‘clearly established’ at the time

Bartlett

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 2, 2026

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that … “To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the court must examine (1) whether the plaintiff has demonstrated that the officer violated a constitutional right and (2) whether that right was clearly

State v. . Moore

104 N.C. 714 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1889

Iowa, 18 Wallace, 137) tend to establish the doctrine on the one hand that the Legislature cannot prohibit one from carrying on a lawful occupation under the guise, which is palpably false, of protecting the public health … On the other hand, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania decided that a law containing a similar prohibition was clearly constitutional, and valid as an exercise of the police power. Powell v. Commonwealth, 114 Penn., 265 .

Kennedy v. Rowe

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 24, 2024

In analyzing qualified immunity, the court asks (1) “whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged or shown make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and (2) “whether the right at issue was clearly established at … “An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson, 555 U.S. at 243-44 (2009); see Anderson v.

Hooper v. North Carolina

379 F. Supp. 2d 804 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 13, 2005

A State may consent to suit in its own courts without waiving its Eleventh Amendment immunity. See Smith v. Reeves, 178 U.S. 436 , 20 S.Ct. 919 , 44 L.Ed. 1140 (1900). NCCU qualifies as a state institution. See N.C. … The general reference to federal wiretapping law does not clearly evidence an intent to waive the state’s Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts.

Raible v. Campbell

911 F. Supp. 185 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 9, 1996

Therefore, if a party is an employee of the United States for purposes of the Clarification Act, the suit is governed by the SAA, which establishes an immunity for agents or employees of the United States in lieu of recovery … The opinion makes clear that IOM was properly dismissed from this litigation, as it was clearly entitled to rely upon the exclusivity, clause.

Monarch Tax Credits, LLC v. N.C. Dep't of Revenue

2021 NCBC 6 · North Carolina Business Court · Jan 25, 2021

[but is rather] a common law theory or defense established by [our] [c]ourt[s,]” “when there is a clash between these constitutional rights and sovereign immunity, the constitutional rights must prevail.” … On the other hand, if the remedy established by the NCAPA is inadequate, exhaustion is not required.

State v. Mills

184 N.C. 694 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 8, 1922

It is fully recognized that in the trial of causes the testimony of a witness may be impeached by evidence of his bad character, and it is equally well established that before this is allowed the impeaching witness must qualify … Among these, the rule which regulates the admission of testimony offered to impeach the character of a witness is now so well established and so clearly defined that a departure from it must be regarded as a violation of

Gill v. . Commissioners

160 N.C. 176 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 7, 1912

In a proceeding of this character, the burden is on the relator to clearly establish the right sought to be enforced." … Does the term embrace women, or only men and qualified voters or electors?

Appalachian Outdoor Advertising Co. v. North Carolina Dep't of Transportation

61 F. Supp. 2d 459 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 24, 1998

The APA, however, is not a font of federal court jurisdiction here, as it is clearly limited to decisions of “each authority of the Government of the United States.” 5 U.S.C. § 701 (b)(1). … Further, Congress has not abrogated the Defendants’ immunity from suit in the Act.