Case law

Knott v. Knott

52 N.C. App. 543 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 16, 1981

Clearly, defendant was entitled to that which she sought in her complaint. … Finding *549 of Fact (7) establishes plaintiffs expenses as $1,628.66 per month, $591.66 of which is attributable to herself, thus implicitly establishing the children’s expenses at $1,037 per month.

Patton v. Shields

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 25, 2023

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably … “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

Thomas v. State Board of Elections

256 N.C. 401 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 28, 1962

For example: The offices of the Executive Department of the State government were established and the terms fixed by the provisions of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution of North Carolina, which reads as follows: … The petitioner contends that his petition for a writ of mandamus is clearly supported by the provisions of G.S. 163-7, reading as follows: “FOR VACANCIES IN STATE OFFICES. — Whenever any vacancies shall exist by reason of

Deminski v. The State Bd. Of Educ.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 7, 2020

immunity bar.”). … Governmental Immunity Under the doctrine of governmental immunity, county boards of education are often shielded “entirely from having to answer for [their] conduct at all in a civil suit for damages.”

Cameron v. New Hanover Memorial Hospital, Inc.

58 N.C. App. 414 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 3, 1982

The rationale of the common law qualified privilege therefore applies. … Clearly, as we have noted, plaintiffs’ competency has been adequately reviewed.

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

Cole v. Weatherman

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 2, 2020

Qualified immunity protects government actors “who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Liverman v. … For qualified immunity to apply, a government official must show “either that no constitutional violation occurred or that the right violated was not clearly established at the time it was violated.”

Roe v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 22, 2020

“Qualified immunity protects officials ‘who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.’” Booker v. … In determining whether qualified immunity shields a defendant from suit, courts employ a two-step inquiry.

Dobson v. Harris

134 N.C. App. 573 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 17, 1999

Defendants’ answer also raised several defenses, including the qualified privilege established by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-550 (1995, repealed 1 July 1999). … That statute provides both civil and criminal immunity to defendants who in good faith report suspected child abuse; it also establishes a rebuttable presumption that reports are made in good faith. Id.

HINES v. JOHNSON

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 30, 2020

was clearly established.” … And in the absence of a constitutional violation, qualified immunity applies and the court need not address whether the constitutional right in question was clearly established

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.

Free Spirit Aviation, Inc. v. Rutherford Airport Authority

206 N.C. App. 192 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 3, 2010

Defendants also point to other testimony by Ronan that he was upset about the selection of Leading Edge because its owner was the least qualified of the four FBO bidders. … and that plaintiffs thus could not overcome their defense of public official immunity. 2 Although this Court in Free Spirit I addressed only the issue of public official immunity, the Court, in the process, concluded — as

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.”

Bunn v. Bowen

637 F. Supp. 464 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 5, 1986

a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee____ (emphasis added). … Nelson, 762 F.2d at 1333 (allowing rates of $100-$125 per hour based on the limited availability of qualified attorneys for immigration proceedings); Underwood v.

Willis v. Duke Power Co.

291 N.C. 19 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 4, 1976

United States, supra, relied on by the Court of Appeals, is clearly distinguishable on its facts. … Although not a privilege, the exception is a “qualified immunity” and extends to all materials prepared “in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party’s consultant, surety

WEBSTER v. APPLE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 10, 2023

a clearly established constitutional right.” … Likewise, precedent clearly established that “[t]he use of any unnecessary, gratuitous, and disproportionate force . . .

Al-Deen v. Trustees of University of North Carolina Wilmington

102 F. Supp. 3d 758 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 6, 2015

Defendants further seek dismissal on the basis of sovereign immunity, qualified immunity, and Eleventh Amendment immunity. DISCUSSION I. … To establish a prima facie case of Title VII retaliation, a plaintiff must “show that (1) she engaged in protected activity; (2) her employer took an action against her that a reasonable employee would find materially adverse

Beaumont v. Federal Election Commission

137 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Oct 3, 2000

for certain “qualified” nonprofit corporations). … Because the Plaintiffs’ speech has been chilled as a result of § 114.10, an infringement which may be redressed by a ruling of this Court, the Plaintiffs have clearly established standing in this case.

Wood v. Town of Oxford

97 N.C. 227 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1887

It may determine and establish their purpose, and enlarge or modify their powers and authority from time to time; and it may create new ones, prescribing their powers and authority, as public necessity and convenience may … Now, it is clearly one of the declared purposes of the statute (Acts 1885, ch. 116), to authorize certain incorporated towns to make "donations" in the way prescribed, to the railroad company, the defendant, the Oxford and

Moseley v. Hendricks

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Aug 22, 2025

Hendricks—to “clearly establish[ ] the lack of any triable issue of fact by the record properly before the court.” Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc., 296 N.C. 467, 469–70 (1979). … In contributory negligence cases, then, summary judgment is foreclosed unless the evidence “so clearly establishes [the plaintiff’s] own negligence as one of the proximate causes of his injury that no other reasonable inference