Case law

Hawkins v. State

342 N.C. 188 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Nov 3, 1995

Word of Faith Fellowship, Inc. v. Rutherford County Department of Social Services

329 F. Supp. 2d 675 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 10, 2004

The alleged threats and harassment clearly constitute injuries to Plaintiffs. Therefore, Plaintiffs have properly alleged a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (3). D. Qualified immunity. … toward constitutional rights, those rights must be clearly established.

Johnson v. City of Fayetteville

91 F. Supp. 3d 775 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 4, 2015

Qualified immunity provides government officials with immunity from suit for money damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable officer would … Nor can the court answer the second qualified immunity inquiry — whether the right was clearly established at the time of the official’s conduct — in Officer Koehler’s favor. Messerschmidt v.

Williams v. Aaron

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 18, 2024

The Defendant argues in the Trial Brief that he is entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate any clearly established right, and that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by failing … Alford, 973 F.2d 307, 312 (4th Cir. 1992) (the question of whether a right is clearly established is a question of law for the court to decide).

Clabough

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 18, 2026

entitled to qualified immunity.”). … Forsythe, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985) (“Unless the plaintiff's allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement

Jasmaine f/k/a Duane L. Fox v. Linsenby

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 13, 2021

“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 … Dolgos, 884 F.3d 172, 178 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Lovelace, 472 F.3d at 199 (finding that an inmate’s RLUIPA rights were clearly established in 2002 for qualified immunity purposes).

EFIRD v. ROCKINGHAM COUNTY SHERIFF SAMUEL SCOTT PAGE

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

Further, under Fourth Circuit precedent, where an officer is denied qualified immunity, he is likewise not entitled to public official immunity. See Bailey v. … Kennedy, 349 F.3d 731, 742 (4th Cir. 2003) (noting that North Carolina public official immunity is “unavailable to officers who violate clearly established rights”); Cooper v.

FREEMAN v. SANCHEZ

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 20, 2025

Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from personal liability for civil damages under section 1983 … clearly established right”).

Corum v. University of North Carolina Ex Rel. Board of Governors

97 N.C. App. 527 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 20, 1990

Similarly, the Court concluded that denial of a public official’s claim of qualified immunity from suit, to the extent that it turns on the legal questions of whether the conduct complained of violated “clearly established … Further, the qualified immunity argument turns on the issue of whether “clearly established law” has been violated. Harlow, supra. In accord with Mitchell v.

Price v. Davis

132 N.C. App. 556 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Mar 16, 1999

, and qualified immunity. … to qualified immunity.

Griffin v. Mortier

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 13, 2022

Purnell, 652 F.3d 524, 531 (4th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their … right and (2) ‘whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.’”).

Roberts v. Swain

126 N.C. App. 712 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jul 15, 1997

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 statutory … However, qualified immunity could operate to shield Swain and McCracken from plaintiff’s damages suit “if ‘a reasonable officer could have believed’ ” plaintiff’s arrest “ ‘to be lawful, in light of clearly established law

Slade v. Vernon

110 N.C. App. 422 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Jun 1, 1993

The sole question upon review is whether the trial court erred in denying defendants’ summary judgment motion based upon public officers’ immunity, governmental immunity and qualified immunity. … In general, qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing discretionary functions insofar as their conduct does not violate “ ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Lee v. Greene

114 N.C. App. 580 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 3, 1994

The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is whether in performing discretionary functions, they have engaged in conduct that violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional … The threshold question regarding a defense of qualified immunity is whether defendants have violated a “clearly established” right. Pritchett, 973 F.2d at 313 .

Showalter v. North Carolina Department of Crime Control & Public Safety

183 N.C. App. 132 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 1, 2007

Defendants argue the trial court erred in concluding that Trooper Emmons was not entitled to qualified immunity because the right which plaintiff alleges to have been violated was not clearly established at the time and because … The defense of qualified immunity shields government officials from personal liability “ ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would

Hawkins v. State

117 N.C. App. 615 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Feb 7, 1995

Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the right violated was clearly established. Clark v. Link, 855 F.2d 156, 160 (4th Cir. 1988). … Accordingly, defendants did not violate any clearly established due process rights in terminating plaintiff and defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as to plaintiff’s Fourteenth-Amendment due process claim. C.

Corum v. University of North Carolina

330 N.C. 761 · Supreme Court of North Carolina · Jan 31, 1992

After filing an answer containing defenses, which included sovereign immunity and qualified immunity, defendants moved for summary judgment. … This is because “[i]f the law was clearly established, the immunity defense ordinarily should fail, since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his conduct.”

Davis v. Town of Southern Pines

116 N.C. App. 663 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Nov 1, 1994

“The test of qualified immunity for police officers sued under [section 1983] is whether [the officers’ conduct violated] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … In ruling on the defense of qualified immunity we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the violation; and (3)

Farrell Ex Rel. Farrell v. Transylvania County Bd. of Educ.

199 N.C. App. 173 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · Aug 18, 2009

As this Court stated, “ ‘[qualified immunity protects public officials from personal liability for performing official, discretionary functions if the conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional … Because Wohler’s alleged conduct violates a clearly established constitutional right to bodily integrity, of which defendant would have known, she is not entitled to the benefits of federal qualified immunity.

Rogerson v. Fitzpatrick

170 N.C. App. 387 · Court of Appeals of North Carolina · May 17, 2005

Forsyth, for support of the proposition that when a court looks at qualified immunity, "[a]ll it need determine is a question of law." … Likewise, this Court has concluded that when ruling on the defense of qualified immunity, we must: (1) identify the specific right allegedly violated; (2) determine whether the right allegedly violated was clearly established