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,

Clontz v. St. Mark's Evangelical Lutheran Church

157 N.C. App. 325 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 15, 2003

Mark’s and Allen Sloop waived immunity from civil liability afforded to volunteers. … No immunity necessarily defeating the claim has been proffered. The immunity conferred by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-539.10 depends on the absence of liability insurance carried by defendants.

Galloway v. Board of Education of Brunswick County

184 N.C. 245 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Oct 25, 1922

On plaintiff's other ground of impeachment, and as we understand tbe record, it appears that tbe first election in these proceedings was under Private Laws 1921, cb. 251, and tbis being a special act attempting to establish … C., 219 , tbe Court has held that “unless a statute from its language, purpose, and context clearly requires tbe contrary, tbe term levy,’ when applied to question of taxation of tbe kind signified, tbe levying or imposition

McCallum v. North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service of N.C. Carolina State University

142 N.C. App. 48 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 6, 2001

Plaintiff cannot establish a property right through the State Personnel Act. … Thus, the appointment letter cannot establish a property right for plaintiff.

Williams v. White

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 7, 2021

Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions … from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights … Moreover, these rights were clearly established at the time of the incident. Siciak, therefore, is not entitled to qualified immunity on these claims.

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

Goodman v. Moose

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 12, 2024

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably … was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Thomas v. Northern Telecom, Inc.

157 F. Supp. 2d 627 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 11, 2000

In addition, both cases cited by Plaintiff in which courts from other circuits recognized this exception are clearly distinguishable from the current case. … In contrast, the Fourth Circuit has clearly adopted the doctrine in the civil rights context in Buschi v. Kirven, 775 F.2d at 1251 . Thus the Washington case is inapposite to the present case.

Matter of Estate of Morris

123 N.C. App. 264 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 16, 1996

. §§ 49-1 through 49-9 or in a civil action to establish paternity under N.C. Gen. … “G.S. 29-19(c) clearly and unambiguously provides that a putative father and his kindred are only entitled to inherit from an illegitimate child if paternity has been established by one of the methods prescribed in G.S. 29

Claybrook v. Board of Commissioners

117 N.C. 456 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 5, 1895

When an elector is allowed to deposit his ballot, the burden is on one who questions its validity to show, by a preponderance of testimony, the ’truth of such facts or circumstances as are relied upon to establish the disqualification … The purchaser should not be required to do more than it was the duty of the county board to do, perliminary to announcing the result, — ascer *462 tain that the sense of a majority of the voters was clearly ascertained to

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.

Jasmaine f/k/a Duane L. Fox v. Haynes

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 10, 2020

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity “shields police officers who commit constitutional violations from liability when, based on clearly established law, they could reasonably … Defendants Lassiter, Grand, Copple, and Young assert that they are entitled to qualified immunity because they did not violate any of Plaintiff’s clearly established constitutional or statutory rights.

Doe ex rel. Connolly v. Holt

332 N.C. 90 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 17, 1992

A careful examination of the circumstances underlying these cases establishes that in these cases, each state supreme court denied recovery because of parent-child immunity, despite the intentional acts of the parent. … Though the majority says otherwise, it is clearly recognizing an exception to the immunity rule, and an exception to the rule by any other name is still an exception.

Andrews v. Peters

75 N.C. App. 252 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 18, 1985

The co-employee immunity read into the Act by the North Carolina case law does not extend to in *254 tentional acts. Id. We refer to the earlier opinion for a complete analysis. … The legislative enactment of Rule 52(a)(2) clearly envisions greater specificity upon the request of a party.

Patterson v. CITY OF GASTONIA

220 N.C. App. 233 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 1, 2012

Therefore, in order for plaintiffs to proceed under the state constitution, they must establish that they lacked an adequate alternative state remedy. … immunity.”

Jennings v. UNIVERSITY OF N. CAR. AT CHAPEL HILL

340 F. Supp. 2d 666 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 27, 2004

It is not clearly factually inconsistent with the Amended Answer, particularly since it was given in response to a less than clear line of questioning. … This may be testified to by either the custodian of the information or a qualified witness. Id. The exhibits at issue are as follows.

Medina v. United States

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 2, 2021

immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” … was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”

Dobson v. Central Carolina Bank and Trust Co.

240 F. Supp. 2d 516 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 22, 2003

Defendants further contend that even if Defendant Fox’s statements constitute slander per se, Defendant Fox is entitled to qualified immunity because she made the statements to a member of law enforcement. … a high degreee [sic] of awareness that they were probably false,” and are therefore not shielded by qualified immunity.

Schmitz

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 13, 2026

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 … A court employs a two-step procedure for determining whether qualified immunity applies “that asks first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established

legalzoom.com, Inc. v. N. Carolina State Bar

2014 NCBC 9 · North Carolina Business Court · Mar 24, 2014

{72} Sovereign immunity protects a State agency from suit absent a waiver of its immunity. Walton v. N. Carolina Dep’t of Agric. & Consumer Servs., No. 5:09- CV-302-FL, 2010 U.S. Dist. … A state agency is entitled to this immunity, as is the State itself. See Meyer v.