Case law

Iglesias v. Wolford

667 F. Supp. 2d 573 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 28, 2009

Qualified immunity is “ ‘an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.’ ” Pearson, 129 S.Ct. at 815 … In most cases, the qualified immunity analysis does not require factual findings, because the inquiry is a “purely legal one: whether the facts alleged ... support a claim of violation of clearly established law.”

Edwards v. City of Goldsboro

981 F. Supp. 406 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Oct 16, 1997

Defendants argue that they are entitled to the defense of qualified immunity. … In such instances, the defense of qualified immunity is not necessary and should not be reached.

Wilkerson v. Thrift

124 F. Supp. 2d 322 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 4, 2000

If it is undisputed that the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time, the defendant asserting a qualified-immunity defense may still be immune from damages for violation of that right if, under the circumstances … of qualified immunity.

Aikens v. Ingram

71 F. Supp. 3d 562 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 4, 2014

Qualified Immunity ■ Qualified immunity likewise bars any monetary relief against defendants in their individual capacities. … “[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a qualified immunity and are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory

State Ex Rel. Cooper v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Co.

197 N.C. App. 176 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 19, 2009

(Wachovia), under which Defendants appointed Wachovia to serve as Escrow Agent of the “Qualified Escrow Fund” that Defendants were required to establish under the Act. … As a result, the record clearly establishes that the trial court considered, apparently without objection, materials outside the pleadings in deciding Defendants’ dismissal motion. 2 .

BLUE RIDGE PUBLIC SAFETY, INC. v. Ashe

712 F. Supp. 2d 440 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 30, 2010

If a potential violation is shown, the next step is to ask whether the right was clearly established. … Qualified immunity is abrogated only when the right that the officer is alleged to have violated was a "clearly established" right at the time of the violation.

Gantt v. Whitaker

203 F. Supp. 2d 503 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 26, 2002

Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages to the extent their conduct does not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Consequently, Whitesides is entitled to qualified immunity.

Farrell Ex Rel. Farrell v. Transylvania County Board of Education

194 N.C. App. 159 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 2, 2008

Defendant alleged she was entitled to public official immunity on the State claims and qualified immunity on the federal claim. … As this Court stated, “ ‘[qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing official, discretionary functions if the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional

Caballero v. Boney

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 28, 2019

Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity because no constitutional violation occurred and, even if a violation did occur it was not clearly established. … 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

Perry v. Pamlico County

88 F. Supp. 3d 518 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 18, 2015

Qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or … rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.”

Blue Ridge Public Safety, Inc. v. Ashe

712 F. Supp. 2d 440 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 30, 2010

If a potential violation is shown, the next step is to ask whether the right was clearly established. … Qualified immunity is abrogated only when the right that the officer is alleged to have violated was a “clearly established” right at the time of the violation.

Jennings v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

240 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 13, 2002

Dorrance is entitled to qualified immunity. 8 Qualified immunity protects government officials from liability under § 1983 so long as the conduct of the official “does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … In regard to the qualified immunity claims of Defendants Hooker, Ehringhaus, Baddour, Miller, and Swofford, supervisory liability was clearly established under § 1983 at the time of their alleged conduct.

LeBlanc v. City of Sanford

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 8, 2021

Plaintiff meets the first prong to defeat Defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity. 2. Was Plaintiff's Right to Due Process Clearly Established? … established, and that they are, therefore, entitled to qualified immunity.

Stockton v. Wake County

173 F. Supp. 3d 292 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 24, 2016

Umesi asserts the defense of qualified- immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity provides that “government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability,-for-civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established

Richmond County Board of Education v. Cowell

225 N.C. App. 583 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 19, 2013

On the other hand, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is not a constitutional right; it is a common law theory or defense established by this Court .... … Our Supreme Court emphasized that Corum “clearly established] the principle that sovereign immunity could not operate to bar direct constitutional claims.” Id. at 340, 678 S.E.2d at 356 .

Prior v. Pruett

143 N.C. App. 612 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 5, 2001

immunity. … “Only where the evidence establishes the plaintiff’s own negligence so clearly that no other reasonable conclusion may be reached is summary judgment to be granted.” Id.

STATE v. MCCLURE

2004 NCBC 8 · North Carolina Business Court · Dec 4, 2004

The NFPA members at least had a plausible argument that excluding the plastic conduit may have involved some legitimate safety concerns. {36} The petitioning activities of NCESPA clearly do not qualify for immunity under … Id. {58} The Court first turns to whether DENR clearly expressed and articulated intent to displace competition with regulation among environmental consultants by establishing reasonable rates.

Phillips v. Gray

163 N.C. App. 52 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 17, 2004

The Fund clearly defines county sheriffs and chief deputies as “Law Enforcement Employees.” … To establish a cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of free speech, plaintiff must forecast sufficient evidence “that the speech complained of qualified as protected speech or activity” and “that such protected

Eberhart v. Gettys

215 F. Supp. 2d 666 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 11, 2002

— Stillwell, Smith, and Gettys — meet the requirements for qualified immunity. … However, this finding alone is not enough to abrogate Gettys’s qualified immunity.

Baker v. Smith

224 N.C. App. 423 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 18, 2012

Public Official Immunity The only question presented on appeal is whether defendant, an assistant jailer, qualifies as a public official entitled to immunity from suit in an individual capacity. 2 This question is one of … The parties agree that a chief jailer is clearly entitled to public official immunity. See Slade v. Vernon, 110 N.C.