Case law

State v. . Glover

112 N.C. 896 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1893

reasoning of the learned opinion of Lmnuax, J., of the Supreme Court of Georgia, is approved by the Court, and the distinction between the rights of a fugitive from justice under international and interstate extradition laws is clearly … S., 183 . * * * If a fugitive may be kidnapped or unlawfully abducted from the State or country of refuge, and be thereafter tried in the State to which he. is forcibly carried, without violating any right or immunity secured

Action NC v. Strach

216 F. Supp. 3d 597 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 27, 2016

In addition, Strach asserts Eleventh Amendment immunity. (ECF No. 29 at 15-17.) … Eleventh Amendment Immunity Both Defendant Strach and the Agency Defendants assert Eleventh Amendment immunity, which bars suits by citizens against their own states. See Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v.

Oroweat Employees Credit Union v. Stroupe

48 N.C. App. 338 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 19, 1980

Even if this were not so, the failure of the dealership to establish any procedure to deal with checks with conditional, restrictive or qualified endorsements, however they may be defined, does not absolve the dealership … However, “where one guarantor receives property or other security which constitutes a means of indemnity for, or immunity from, loss, it inures to the benefit of all co-guarantors.” 38 C.J.S.

Ford v. . Manning

152 N.C. 151 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 9, 1910

Even in matters pertaining to public roads, the statute clearly contemplates that in certain specified matters the board may act otherwise than at these two public meetings. … who were qualified and acting; and therefore, the two justices who made the order in the present case were the board of supervisors for Bethel Township, qualified and competent to perform the duties of such board.

Biddix v. Henredon Furniture Industries, Inc.

76 N.C. App. 30 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 16, 1985

to administer federally mandated programs of environmental management and to qualify to accept and administer funds from the federal government for such programs. … The Springer court held that permitted discharges in compliance with the ordinance would afford defendant immunity from liability for the city’s failure to properly treat and dispose of the waste which subsequently damaged

Robinson v. Goldsboro.

135 N.C. 382 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 11, 1904

The power to issue bonds for the purpose of establishing an electric plant (and we think this language includes making adequate provision for lighting the city) is expressly conferred subject to the approval of the qualified … It is clearly within the power of the General Assembly to restrict, which of course includes the power to prescribe, the terms upon which it may be exercised. Const., Art. 8, sec. 4. The judgment must be Affirmed.

RICHARDSON-BEY v. SHELTON

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 13, 2025

“Qualified immunity protects government officials from civil liability and suit insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … established’ prong of the qualified immunity test” and “no citation to cases actually applying the ‘clearly established’ prong of the qualified immunity test” (brackets and certain internal

Holland

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 2026

Similarly, Leipold’s assertions of public official immunity and qualified immunity are inappropriate for resolution at this stage. … established.

Carter v. Lassiter

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 14, 2019

To overcome the qualified immunity defense at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must have shown facts that make out a violation of a constitutional right, and the right at issue must have been “clearly established … The right at issue is “clearly established” for qualified immunity 11 purposes if:

Nello L. Teer Co. v. North Carolina State Highway Commission

265 N.C. 1 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 23, 1965

It must be considered and construed in the context of well established legal principles stated below. Absent waiver, the State is immune from suit. Smith v. Hefner, 235 N.C. 1, 6 , 68 S.E. 2d 783 ; Ferrell v. … Clearly, it did not consider it was required to do so but that its function was comparable to that ordinarily performed by a board of arbitration.

Snuggs v. Stanly County Department of Public Health

63 N.C. App. 86 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 5, 1983

It is well established that State courts have concurrent general subject matter jurisdiction to hear Section 1983 claims. In Martinez v. … Presnell , a remarkably analagous case, clearly holds to the long-established North Carolina rule that “where the legislature has provided by statute an effective administrative remedy, that remedy is exclusive and its relief

DIAMOND v. ODEDERE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 9, 2024

Since “qualified immunity is designed to shield officers not only from liability but from the burdens of litigation, its establishment at the pleading or summary judgment stage has been specifically encouraged.” … Nowhere in his Answer does Defendant explicitly state the phrase ‘qualified immunity’ let alone the words immunity. See Sales v.

Jackson v. Daniels

196 N.C. App. 517 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 21, 2009

immunity. … A police officer is a public official with qualified governmental immunity. Shuping v. Barber, 89 N.C. App. 242, 248 , 365 S.E.2d 712, 716 (1988).

Roberts v. Perry

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 25, 2019

To overcome the qualified immunity defense at the summary judgment stage, the plaintiff must have shown facts that make out a violation of a constitutional right, and the right at issue must have been “clearly established … The right at issue is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes if: [t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official

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

Finch v. Wilson County

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 5, 2020

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 … right violated was clearly established.”

TYLER v. LOCKLEAR

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 1, 2022

Thus, the traditional two-step qualified immunity inquity requites a court to determine: “(1) whether the official violated a constitutional right; and if so, (2) whether the right was ‘clearly established’ at the time … “An official sued under § 1983 is entitled to qualified immunity unless it is shown that the official violated a statutory or constitutional right that was ‘clearly established’ at the time of the challenged conduct

LEWIS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 28, 2026

Qualified immunity shields the establishing the absence of a genuine defendants from the eight-hour dispute of material fact by property seizure claim. … “The F.4th 498, 505 (4th Cir. 2024) doctrine of qualified immunity (quoting Ewards v.

Bouvier v. Porter

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 5, 2021

the trial court’s failure to dismiss [p]laintiff’s claims deprives [d]efendants of immunity from suit[.]” 270 N.C. … Qualified Personnel, Inc., 294 N.C. 200, 208, 240 S.E.2d 338, 343 (1978). “Whether an  BOUVIER V.

Adkins v. Martin

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 5, 2019

(3) Qualified Immunity The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly … The right at issue is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes if: [t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official