Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
7,266 results
2.35s
182 N.C. 747 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 29, 1921
for necessary expenses, it has been repeatedly held that tbe term “qualified voters therein” means all persons resident in tbe district and qualified to vote there, as evidenced by a valid registry of voters made pursuant … tbe qualified voters of tbe district is intended.
Cited 16 timesPublished112 N.C. 862 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1893
Those provisions of the general road law are clearly repugnant to, and operate as a repeal of, that portion of the charter which granted the exemption, (864) unless the older statute was, in contemplation of law, "local or … But it does not necessarily follow that the effect of that statute was to establish a sweeping rule, without any such exception as had been previously made by law.
Cited 6 timesPublished285 N.C. 530 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jul 1, 1974
And when the legislative body undertakes to regulate a business, trade, or profession, courts assume it acted within: its powers until the contrary clearly appears. Mitchell v. … Reed the United States Supreme Court reviewed an Idaho statute that provided a mandatory preference for males over females in selecting estate administrators within a given class of qualified persons.
Cited 47 timesPublished352 F. Supp. 2d 618 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 7, 2005
The FTCA was enacted as a limited waiver of the federal government’s sovereign immunity for torts committed by employees. … It is a limited waiver, because at the same time that Congress established this avenue for suit, Congress also established exceptions to that waiver.
Cited 2 timesPublished256 N.C. 288 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 2, 1962
In essence it is a conflict between the State of North Carolina and one of its residents or citizens, who asserts an immunity from trial in the State Court, asserting that exclusive jurisdiction to try him for the offense … It is further and fully established that where a literal interpretation of the language of a statute will lead to absurd results, or contravene the manifest purpose of the Legislature, as otherwise expressed, the reason and
Cited 9 timesPublished195 N.C. 132 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 31, 1928
The question of contracting these debts has never been submitted to the qualified voters of the county. Constitution, Art. VII, sec. 7. … The subject has recently been considered and the controlling principle clearly stated in an opinion delivered by Connor, J., in Frazier v. Comrs., 194 N. C., 49 , cited and approved in Hall v. Comrs., 194 N.
Cited 12 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 16, 2019
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 … Thus, the traditional two-step qualified immunity inquiry requires 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
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 23, 2022
In analyzing qualified immunity, the court asks “whether the facts that a plaintiff has shown . make out a violation of a constitutional right,” and “whether the right at issue was clearly established at the … Thus, Long’s right to a fair trial free of knowingly falsified evidence was clearly established in 1976.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 18, 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 … (F) Qualified Immunity Defendants argues that qualified immunity shields them from damages in their individual capacities because Plaintiff has not established a constitutional
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 30, 2021
Whether a constitutionally protected right to continued enrollment at an institution of higher education was “clearly established” at all times relevant to this matter, for purposes of Defendants’ qualified immunity
Cited 0 timesUnknown2015 NCBC 84 · North Carolina Business Court · Aug 27, 2015
The movant bears the burden of establishing the right to a preliminary injunction. Pruitt v. Williams, 288 N.C. 368, 372 (1975). … An injunction that is mandatory in nature, rather than prohibitory, “will ordinarily be granted only where the injury is immediate, pressing, irreparable, and clearly established.” Auto. Dealer Res., Inc. v.
Cited 2 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 5, 2023
“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.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownWhite v. Fisheries Products Co.
185 N.C. 68 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 7, 1923
sale, but here the facts permit the inference that having the fraudulent purpose in his mind at the time, defendant’s agent obtained the notes under the guise of a bona fide agreement not to negotiate, and the cause comes clearly … As said in Feezer’s case, supra: “To bold the contrary would be to sanction the principle that the deeper the guilt the the immunity, and enable fraud by its own contrivance to so entrench itself that its position would in
Cited 2 timesPublishedHartsfield v. Harvey C. Hines Co.
200 N.C. 356 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 18, 1931
Tbe foregoing instruction is in accord with authority established by tbe decisions of this Court. Ramsey v. Cheek, 109 N. C., 270 ; Gattis v. Kilgo, 128 N. C., 402 ; Gattis v. Kilgo, 140 N. C., 106 ; Fields v. … The legal distinctions between absolute and qualified privilege are pointed out in tbe decisions. Qualified privilege rests upon tbe fact of interest or duty.
Cited 25 timesPublished539 F. Supp. 2d 831 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 18, 2008
Plaintiff is properly concerned with trying to establish her wrongful discharge claim against the individual defendants in their personal capacities. … However, the capacity in which she has sued the individual defendants is irrelevant to whether any of them qualifies as her “employer.”
Cited 19 timesPublishedMorris Communications Corp. v. City of Bessemer City Zoning Board of Adjustment
202 N.C. App. 631 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 2, 2010
The standard of review included in the superior court’s order is clearly consistent with the standard of review for interpretation of a local zoning ordinance as established by this Court. … An invalid permit does not qualify for statutory rights according to the express language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-385(b)(i). This result is also supported by previous holdings of this Court.
Reversed on other grounds by Morris Communications Corp. v. City of Bessemer City Zoning Board of Adjustment, 365 N.C. 152 (2011)Cited 4 timesPublished298 N.C. 715 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 4, 1979
Such an allegation at the pleading stage serves to negate the good faith element of qualified privilege. … This is especially true where a statute establishes, as here, a procedure whereby matters of regulation and control are first addressed by commissions or agencies particularly qualified for the purpose.
Cited 168 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 5, 2020
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 … Here, for the Court to find that Deputy Momphard is not entitled to qualified immunity under the undisputed facts of this case, this Court would have to hold that it is clearly established that use of deadly force was
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 24, 2023
“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.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownLaFontaine v. Southern Underwriters Ass'n
83 N.C. 132 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jun 5, 1880
I have looked into the cases cited at the bar and am unable to perceive any principle which ought to vary the foregoing opinion,” *142 It is quite obvious from the principle established that much of the information responsive … How can this immunity be invaded by requiring disclosures, rendered inadmissible as evidence against him, and when any attempt by subsequent legislation to make the evidence competent wrnuld be an ex pod facto enactment and
Cited 14 timesPublished
Ask Donna