Case law

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.

Price

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 20, 2026

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.”

Reid v. Scarborough

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

However, “[w]hen a government official is sued in their individual capacity, qualified immunity protects them ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a … Thus, “[a]n officer is entitled to qualified immunity unless he (1) ‘violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of [his] conduct was clearly established at the time.’” Hulbert v.

In re: J.A.D.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 19, 2022

The petition clearly apprised Jeremy of the conduct for which he was being charged with sufficient specificity to allow him to prepare an adequate defense. … “A variance between the criminal offense charged and the offense established by the evidence is in essence a failure of the State to establish the offense charged.” State v.

Riddle v. Cumberland County

180 N.C. 321 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 10, 1920

It was merely a convenient form of ballot designated to express the will of the qualified voters upon the question submitted to them, and the ballots used by them and the surrounding circumstances show clearly and unmistakably … The entire township was to be established as a single school district, and the vote was to be taken accordingly.

Wilmington & Weldon Railroad v. Alsbrook

110 N.C. 137 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Feb 5, 1892

The established rule of construction in such cases is that rights, privileges and immunities not expressly granted are reserved. … If to be used as a branch or connecting road, the property clearly was not intended to be exempt.

Frazier v. NC Cent. Univ.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 17, 2015

Such is clearly not the case here. … finding of waiver of sovereign immunity.”

Ramsey v. Schauble

141 F. Supp. 2d 584 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 2, 2001

Although the Eleventh Amendment, by its terms, applies only to suits brought against a state by “Citizens of another State,” it is well established that “an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts … Rather, a defendant state official must plead Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Moss v. Harwood

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 9, 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 … Plaintiff has not come forward with any evidence that Defendants violated his clearly established rights, and therefore, Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

North Carolina Ex Rel. Long v. Alexander & Alexander Services, Inc.

711 F. Supp. 257 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 12, 1989

The Alexander Parties respond that “[a]s a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alexander & Alexander, Inc. ..., a named party to this suit, A & A of Washington’s claim can clearly be maintained by its parent.” … The Alexander Parties have established no such basis here. In the only case they cite where a corporation was permitted to *265 sue on behalf of its subsidiaries, Edward Hines Lumber Co. v.

WALL v. GULLEDGE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 2025

“An official is not entitled to qualified immunity if he or she deprived an individual of a constitutional right and that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.” Id. … person, a violation of a clearly established Fourth Amendment right to be arrested only upon probable cause ensues.”

In Re Owens

128 N.C. App. 577 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 17, 1998

Owens clearly was on notice that the trial court had considered the privilege claim and rejected it. … Ed. 2d at 645 (emphasis added). *583 Owens contends that Justice Powell’s concurrence, when read in conjunction with the dissent, establishes a majority view recognizing a reporter’s qualified privilege and requiring a case

Kline v. Cleveland County

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 7, 2020

Qualified Immunity While DSS Defendants are not entitled to absolute immunity for alleged investigative wrongdoing, they may nevertheless be entitled to qualified immunity. … The doctrine of qualified immunity renders government officials immune from suit where their conduct does not clearly violate established statutory or constitutional rights. See Pearson v.

Brown

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 15, 2026

The Defendants nevertheless contend that Defendant Maybin is entitled to qualified immunity on grounds that Maybin’s conduct did not violate a clearly established right. [Doc. 95 at 11-12]. … The Defendants’ Motion is denied as to the Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Maybin, and the Court concludes that Defendant Maybin is not entitled to qualified immunity for

Wilkinson v. . Dunbar

149 N.C. 20 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 5, 1908

McKelvey on Evidence, p. 230, and, in reference to it, this author says that it is nothing more than ordinary testimony as to facts given by witnesses specially qualified by observation and experience to give-it. … Such witnesses are really not experts in the strict sense of the term; they are only specially qualified witnesses.

Collins v. Franklin County

861 F. Supp. 2d 670 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 4, 2012

Sovereign immunity is a defense established to protect a state and its officials and agents from suit, and a failure to allege waiver of sovereign immunity against a government entity for tort does not state a claim and should … Collins has failed to allege a waiver of sovereign immunity with regard to her tort claims.

Wachovia Bank & Trust Co. v. Morgan

9 N.C. App. 460 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Oct 21, 1970

advice and research data and to establish an office with pertinent supplies, equipment and staff.” … The implication of item 5 of Section Seven of the Will is to the contrary; by this section the compensation for administering the trust is clearly set out by Mrs. Reynolds.

State v. Thomas

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 17, 2025

Defendant has clearly and distinctly argued plain error on appeal. … The State also repeatedly argued Defendant’s use of “excessive force” would deprive him of self-defense immunity under any scenario.

Pope v. Blue

809 F. Supp. 392 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 16, 1992

We note that in Bandemer the plurality held that the results of a single election were insufficient to establish discriminatory effect. … While requiring the General Assembly to adopt nonpartisan, computer-generated districts might be a good idea, it clearly goes beyond what the Constitution mandates.