Case law

Lyon v. Continental Trading Co.

76 N.C. App. 499 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 3, 1985

Plaintiffs have clearly alleged in their complaint a claim for relief based upon defendant’s storage of the chemical Dinitro-phenol in defective and leaking containers and that such negligence on the part of defendant was … There is nothing whatsoever alleged or unalleged in plaintiffs’ complaint to establish an insurmountable bar to plaintiffs’ claim.

Whitford v. Board of Commissioners

159 N.C. 160 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · May 28, 1912

Elections were duly held in the county and township, and by a majority of the qualified voters the levy of a tax of $2,500 and the issue of bonds by the county to the par value of $5,000, and by the township to the amount … We are not at liberty to declare a legislative act void, as being-unconstitutional, unless it is clearly so beyond any reasonable doubt.

State v. Torrence

247 N.C. App. 232 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Apr 19, 2016

TORRENCE Opinion of the Court Rule 702(a) and establish proper foundation. Id.; see State v. Godwin, ___ N.C. App. ___, ___ S.E.2d ___ (Apr. 19, 2016) (No. … In reversing this Court’s holding that such error was harmless, the Supreme Court explained, The evidence presented at trial was clearly sufficient to send the case to the jury and to support a

ROBINSON v. WILLIAMS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 18, 2025

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

BURROUGHS v. THE COUNTY OF ROCKINGHAM

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 28, 2019

To that end, qualified immunity “shields government officials from liability for civil damages, provided that their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights within the knowledge of … There remains the question of whether Officer Martin is nonetheless entitled to qualified immunity from suit because “the law did not put [him] on notice that his conduct would be clearly unlawful.”

MARTIN v. SEABOLT

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 7, 2025

of qualified immunity to Defendants at the summary judgment stage. … Accordingly, Plaintiff’s arguments regarding qualified immunity miss the mark. Regardless, disagreement with established legal principles provides no grounds for Rule 59 relief.

O'Neal v. . Rollinson

212 N.C. 83 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Sep 22, 1937

In its application to the facts of the case on trial, it seems to me the rule thus propounded was clearly correct. … Board of Commerce & Navigation, 121 Atl., 337 , it is said: “In conveying to the water, the prosecutor was entitled to rely on, and its grantees were charged with knowledge of, the established rule that in wharfing out, the

O'Mara Ex Rel. Reavis v. Wake Forest University Health Sciences

184 N.C. App. 428 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 3, 2007

Plaintiffs assert that this was error. *436 Plaintiffs contend that “the foundation established in his deposition” qualified him to testify under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-21.12 (2005). … “[I]n a medical malpractice action, the standard of care is normally established by the testimony of a qualified expert.

In Re Byrd

256 B.R. 246 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 16, 2000

Younger established a three-part test to determine under what circumstances a federal court may enjoin a state court proceeding. … This proceeding also does not qualify as a suit against one of the United States.

Key v. . Board of Education

170 N.C. 123 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 17, 1915

The complaint alleged that the said district was duly established in 1908 and had continued to operate under the law, section 4115, Revisal, *Page 172 until the present year, when a petition, signed by two-thirds of the qualified … The authorities cited in the learned brief of counsel for appellee were cases where the powers conferred were held to be purely ministerial and the right to mandamus was very clearly established.

State v. Turbyfill

243 N.C. App. 183 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 1, 2015

“Daubert clearly contemplates the vesting of significant discretion in the [trial] court with regard to the decision to admit expert scientific testimony.” Id. (quoting Maryland Cas. Co. v. … Taylor establishes a key point in the debate between an expert’s qualification and his application of his expertise and resulting opinion.

Scott v. Watson

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 6, 2021

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

Norton v. Columbus County Board of Elections

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 13, 2020

The CCBOE defendants are entitled to qualified immunity under section 1983 unless “(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was clearly established at … The Supreme Court has reserved judgment on whether decisions of a federal court of appeals are a source of clearly established law for purposes of qualified immunity. See id.; Kisela, 138 S.

State v. McEachern

283 N.C. 57 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Mar 14, 1973

. *62 The question by the able and fair trial judge, although clearly inadvertent, assumed that defendant had raped Mrs. Sanderson. This expression of opinion might well have affected the verdict of the jury. … In the first place, it is not conceded that the guilt of the defendant is conclusively established by the record. . . . Suffice it to say, the evidence is in conflict.

Town of Hendersonville v. Jordan

150 N.C. 35 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Dec 22, 1908

And as to the place where the election was held, the general law (section 2946) clearly contemplates that the polling place should be fixed by the governing authorities of the city or town; and while these places are, as … On the remaining objection urged to the validity of this contemplated bond issue, that a majority of the qualified voters of the town was required, the charter provides expressly in reference to this election that the result

McClary v. Downey

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 28, 2020

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

Holland v. French

Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 1, 2020

Donnie George Holland qualified as executor for her estate (“Plaintiff”). … The Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity.

United States v. State of North Carolina

400 F. Supp. 343 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 27, 1975

The consequences are ameliorated by the establishment of an alternate way to achieve licensing. … Where that point is—whether at 950 or some other score—is not established by the record. 5.

Carroll v. Herring

180 N.C. 369 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 17, 1920

The last clause in the above item, by which this 37 acres of land was devised, shows clearly that it was the intention of the grantor for his son, James A. … What words could the testator have used to more clearly express his desire than “Both of said tracts to the said James A.

In re S.D.J.

192 N.C. App. 478 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Sep 2, 2008

It is well established that "`[t]he question of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time, even in the Supreme Court. … When the record clearly shows that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Court will take notice and dismiss the action ex mero motu.'"