Case law

Winstead v. Derreberry

73 N.C. App. 35 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 19, 1985

Second, such liberality should not, however, extend beyond the clearly expressed language of those provisions, and our courts may not enlarge the ordinary meaning of the terms used by the legislature or engage in any method … These facts are sufficient to establish “substantial” dependency for the purpose of G.S. § 97-2(12), qualifying the stepchildren as a “child” dependent on deceased under G.S. § 97-39 and, therefore, entitled to a share of

Benzing v. Treadway

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 23, 2020

The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials from actions for civil damages as long as “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … The Supreme Court has established a two-pronged test for qualified immunity: “1) whether a constitutional right has been violated on the facts alleged, and 2) whether the right was clearly established at the time so that

Bivings v. Gosnell.

141 N.C. 341 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 16, 1906

But tbe witness does not seem to have qualified himself as an expert, or to have been asked any questions tending to qualify him as such. … The declaration of the tenant would be clearly competent for such purpose, and the declaration of Morris made to the tenant, assented to and acquiesced in by him, is equally competent.

Craven v. Novelli

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 13, 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.” … Qualified immunity protects officials “who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry, 652 F.3d at 531.

Alston v. Hueske

244 N.C. App. 546 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jan 5, 2016

The Administrator requested leave to amend the pleadings in order to clearly comply with Rule 9(j), but the trial court denied the Administrator’s request under -3- … willing to testify that the medical care did not comply with the applicable standard of care, and the motion is filed with the complaint; or (3) The pleading alleges facts establishing

Mills v. Duke University

234 N.C. App. 380 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 17, 2014

We must first address whether Officers Carter and Liberto are protected by public official immunity. … As such, they qualify as ‘public officers’ pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14–223.”).

Sessions v. . Columbus County

214 N.C. 634 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 4, 1939

It is established by tbe authoritative decisions interpreting these sections: 1. … It is admitted that the resolution did not receive a favorable vote of a majority of the qualified voters.

Evans v. Hughes

135 F. Supp. 555 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 14, 1955

Jopes, 142 U.S. 18 , at page 24, 12 S.Ct. 109 , at page 111, 35 L.Ed. 919 , the court holds: “And the same rule of immunity extends to civil as to criminal cases. … Platt, 32 Conn. 75 , fully illustrates the extent to which immunity goes.

Baker v. Varser

240 N.C. 260 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 19, 1954

It clearly appears by the language of our former opinion, which we here emphasize, that the matter was to be heard in the Superior Court solely upon the Record, and the hearing should be limited to the question of residence … By virtue of its police power a state is authorized to establish qualifications for admission to practice law in its jurisdiction. In re Applicants for License, 143 N.C. 1 , 55 S.E. 635 .

State v. Rollins

363 N.C. 232 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 1, 2009

Other considerations have also influenced our previous determinations of whether certain communications qualify as “confidential.” … The record clearly shows that the conversations between defendant and his wife occurred during routine DOC visits and thereby lacked any reasonable expectation of privacy.

Bulluck v. Martin

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 19, 2022

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

Alliance Company v. State Hospital at Butner

241 N.C. 329 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 14, 1955

However, it is not here neeessai’y to pass upon the question as to rule of construction in a statute waiving immunity. The case of Lyon & Sons v. … There the basic claim, on which right of subrogation was predicated, was clearly within the purview of the Tort Claims Act.

Rose v. City of Rocky Mount

180 N.C. App. 392 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Dec 5, 2006

Plaintiff-employee also testified that, in leaving the prints, she was following her training and established police procedure. … Injuries stemming from those dangers qualify for Workers’ Compensation. See Pulley v. City of Durham, 121 N.C.

DALE v. BARNES

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 4, 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 … 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

In re E.G.M.

230 N.C. App. 196 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 5, 2013

The court established a permanent plan of reunification with respondent-mother but relieved DSS of further efforts toward reunification with respondent-father. … “Qualified Expert Witnesses” under the ICWA Although the ICWA does not define “qualified expert witnesses,” non-binding guidelines promulgated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs emphasize “that Congress attribute [d] many unwarranted

Bennett v. Reed

534 F. Supp. 83 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 23, 1981

Further, plaintiff complains that there is not a qualified nurse on twenty-four hour duty at the Moore County Unit. … The procedure established in Department of Corrections, Physical Examinations and Outpatient Health Records section # .0202, does not require the nurse to be on duty at the Unit 24 hours per day.

McElvine v. Beaver

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

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 … To find a right is clearly established does not mean that “the exact conduct at issue [must] have been held unlawful for the law governing an officer’s actions to be clearly established.” Amaechi v.

RODGERS v. THE TOWN OF CHINA GROVE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 20, 2023

Indeed, 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. … Instead, “the question is whether a reasonable officer in the same circumstances * Defendants also discuss the question of whether a right allegedly violated was “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes

Beard v. Town of Topsail Beach,et al

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 25, 2021

A constitutional right allegedly abridged is “clearly established” for qualified immunity purposes if [t]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a … First, cases decided in other circuits do not constitute clearly established law for purposes of the qualified immunity analysis. See Hill, 727 F.3d at 322.

Smith v. State

298 N.C. 115 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 4, 1979

Clearly, the legislature intended for the head of the Department of Human Resources to have final authority over all management functions, not merely “supervisory” power. … The tape also disclosed unanimous resentment against the hot line established by the Department of Human Resources for hospital employees to voice complaints and against the “grant of immunity” to those who used it.