Case law

Dunn v. State of North Carolina

179 N.C. App. 753 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 17, 2006

Such a result would clearly elevate form over substance. This is especially untenable . . . where the matter is of constitutional import and where, in practical consequence, the purpose of the statute was realized. … Accordingly, once the named Plaintiffs established standing to proceed on the individual claims, they were entitled, under Rule 23, to represent not only other individuals, but also non-individual taxpayers, specifically,

Matter of Bell

107 N.C. App. 566 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 6, 1992

Tucker contends that the lower court erred in denying her motion to dismiss on the basis that DSS did not establish neglect by clear and convincing evidence. … The finding of neglect is clearly *571 supported by the evidence, and it is obvious that the day care program operated by DSS would be beneficial to these children.

Shingleton v. State

260 N.C. 451 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 20, 1963

It does not qualify plaintiff’s right by use of such terms as “personally” or “in person.” The language of the grant is that “the said J. A. Shingleton is •hereby granted the right . . .” … The grant of easement was so- clearly connected with .tire conveyance of the 110-aore tract ¡that in tihe deed it follows immediately tihe description of the land.

Memorial Hospital of Alamance County, Inc. v. Brown

50 N.C. App. 526 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 3, 1981

Brown, and the plaintiff’s evidence further fails to establish the reasonableness and necessity of identifiable medical services incurred by the defendant, Virginia R. … Blake’s qualifications and experience clearly qualified him to give such opinion testimony. Maloney v. Hospital Systems, supra.

Board of Commissioners v. Smith

110 N.C. 417 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1892

The town, having been thus treated as a party to the proceeding, very clearly had a right to have the action of the Board of Commissioners reviewed, and, as no appeal lies from that body in a case like the present, the writ … passing upon an application for license, and they have a right to take into consideration the question whether the demands of the public require an increase of such accommodations, and whether the place it is- proposed to establish

Shaw v. Town of Mint Hill

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 14, 2024

Therefore, “[u]nless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery.” … Because Plaintiff plausibly alleges that SBI Defendants violated his clearly established constitutional rights, SBI Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff's negligence claims on public official and qualified immunity grounds

Moore v. . Bell

191 N.C. 305 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 3, 1926

IV, sec. 2) which provides that `the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.'" S. v. Gallop , 126 N.C. 979 . … The principle is clearly and forcefully enunciated in recent opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States. In addition to the authorities cited by Justice Adams, see New Jersey v.

Shock v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 5, 2024

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … 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

Thurston v. Avery County Sheriff's Office

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 22, 2021

Qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have … Triveline, 661 F.3d 9 In determining qualified immunity, the Court must consider the particular facts of the case and the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the law was so clearly established that a

Beatty v. Warren

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 23, 2024

“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. … was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

State v. Brockett

185 N.C. App. 18 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 7, 2007

While Defendant does not clearly argue that the admission of this evidence violated Rule 403 of the North Carolina Evidence Code, we believe it is imperative to address this issue. … been qualified as an expert in open court).

Clary v. Alexander County Board of Education

19 N.C. App. 637 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 4, 1973

We hold that Roger Dale Clary failed to exercise ordinary and reasonable care for his own safety’ under the known circumstances then existing and was clearly negligent. … Since plaintiffs’ own evidence established his contributory negligence, the directed verdict for the defendant was entirely proper. Lowe v. Futrell, 271 N.C. 550 , 157 S.E. 2d 92 ; Turpin v. Gallimore, 8 N. C.

United States Ex Rel. Lindsey v. Trend Community Mental Health Services

88 F. Supp. 2d 475 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 12, 1999

The Fourth Circuit has clearly ruled: *479 [W]e recognize that no court has yet considered the interposition of the Eleventh Amendment to the False Claims Act in the wake of Seminole [Tribe v. … The law has been well established for over 50 years that the damages provided by the Act are not punitive but remedial.

Bahsoon v. Pezetel, Ltd.

768 F. Supp. 507 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 23, 1991

The FSIA “establishes comprehensive and exclusive standards to be used in *510 resolving questions of sovereign immunity raised by foreign states in either federal or state court in the United States.” Williams v. … Immunity is thus the general rule and must be adhered to by the court unless it is clearly shown that an exception applies. Gibbons v. Republic of Ireland, 532 F.Supp. 668 (D.D.C.1982).

ESTATE OF JOSEPH LOPEZ v. HAMILTON

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 2, 2023

clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge of a reasonable person.” … In other words, public official immunity “is unavailable to officers who violate clearly established rights.” Bailey, 349 F.3d at 742.

Allred v. Capital Area Soccer League, Inc.

194 N.C. App. 280 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 16, 2008

The defendants’ duty to warn is qualified to the extent that the danger is known or so obvious that the plaintiff should have been aware of it. … First, this allegation was specifically qualified and based upon defendants’ “particular knowledge of the sport of soccer.”

Hochheiser v. North CaroLina Department of Transportation

82 N.C. App. 712 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 16, 1986

By enacting G.S. 143-291, the Tort Claims Act, the legislature waived the State’s sovereign immunity for claims arising “as a result of the negligence of any officer, employee, involuntary servant or agent of the State while … had been developed which established a methodology for dealing with roadside hazards.

Avens v. Dixon

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

or her conduct was clearly established at the time. … Accordingly, Kelly is entitled to qualified immunity for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim.

Heckman v. University of North Carolina

19 F. Supp. 2d 468 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 11, 1998

(In re Celotex Corp.), 124 F.3d 619, 628 (4th Cir.1997) (stating that a plaintiff has the burden of establishing grounds for jurisdiction over the person). … in relevant part that those who enter into a contract in the amount of $10,-000 or more with an agency or department of the United States will be required to "take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified

CONNELL v. RUSSELL, PA-C

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 28, 2024

clearly established at the time.” … immunity under the then-clearly established law, see id. at 306-07 (“[A defendant’s] response to a perceived risk must be more than . . . simply unreasonable.”).