Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Epps v. Duke University, Inc.green2 sentences2016This Court allows interlocutory appeals of orders denying motions based on these defenses because "the essence of absolute immunity is its possessor's *37 entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct in a civil damages action." Epps v. Duke Univ., Inc., 122 N.C.App. 198 , 201, 468 S.E.2d 846 , 849 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), disc. review denied, 344 N.C. 436 , 476 S.E.2d 115 (1996). 2016This Court allows interlocutory appeals of orders denying motions based on these defenses because "the essence of absolute immunity is its possessor's *37 entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct in a civil damages action." Epps v. Duke Univ., Inc., 122 N.C.App. 198 , 201, 468 S.E.2d 846 , 849 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), disc. review denied, 344 N.C. 436 , 476 S.E.2d 115 (1996). | 3 | 10 |
Mitchell v. Forsythgreen2 sentences1996The Supreme Court in Mitchell v. Forsyth, explained that “denial of a substantial claim of absolute immunity is an order appealable before final judgment, for the essence of absolute immunity is its possessor’s entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct in a civil damages action.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411, 424 (1985). 1996The Supreme Court in Mitchell v. Forsyth, explained that “denial of a substantial claim of absolute immunity is an order appealable before final judgment, for the essence of absolute immunity is its possessor’s entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct in a civil damages action.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 525 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411, 424 (1985). | 3 | 4 |
Herndon v. Barrettgreen2 sentences2005We recognize the non-prevailing party's right to immediate review because "`the essence of absolute immunity is its possessor's entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct in a civil damages action.'" Id. (quoting Epps v. Duke University, Inc., 122 N.C.App. 198, 201 , 468 S.E.2d 846, 849 , disc. rev. denied, 344 N.C. 436 , 476 S.E.2d 115 (1996) (citing Herndon v. Barrett, 101 N.C.App. 636, 639 , 400 S.E.2d 767, 769 (1991))). 2005We recognize the non-prevailing party's right to immediate review because "`the essence of absolute immunity is its possessor's entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct in a civil damages action.'" Id. (quoting Epps v. Duke University, Inc., 122 N.C.App. 198, 201 , 468 S.E.2d 846, 849 , disc. rev. denied, 344 N.C. 436 , 476 S.E.2d 115 (1996) (citing Herndon v. Barrett, 101 N.C.App. 636, 639 , 400 S.E.2d 767, 769 (1991))). | 1 | 4 |
Leonard v. Bellgreen1 sentence2022App. 688, 689 (2001); Leonard v. Bell, 254 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
Summey v. Barkergreen1 sentence2022App. 198, 201 (1996)) (explaining that an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a dispositive motion is allowed because “the essence of absolute immunity is its possessor’s entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct in a civil damages action.’’), disc. review denied, 344 N.C. 436 (1996)); see also Summey v. Barker, 142 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Epps v. Duke University
green
2 sentences2022App. 198, 201 (1996)) (explaining that an interlocutory appeal of an order denying a dispositive motion is allowed because “the essence of absolute immunity is its possessor’s entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct in a civil damages action.’’), disc. review denied, 344 N.C. 436 (1996)); see also Summey v. Barker, 142 N.C. 2016This Court allows interlocutory appeals of orders denying motions based on these defenses because "the essence of absolute immunity is its possessor's *37 entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct in a civil damages action." Epps v. Duke Univ., Inc., 122 N.C.App. 198 , 201, 468 S.E.2d 846 , 849 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted), disc. review denied, 344 N.C. 436 , 476 S.E.2d 115 (1996). | 9 | 1999–2022 |
Thompson v. Town of Dallas
green
2 sentences2020CITY OF HIGH POINT Opinion of the Court Dallas, 142 N.C. 2020CITY OF HIGH POINT Opinion of the Court Dallas, 142 N.C. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Price v. Davis
green
2 sentences2007We recognize the non-prevailing party’s right to immediate review because “ ‘the essence of absolute immunity is its possessor’s *557 entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct in a civil damages action.’ ” Id. (quoting Epps v. Duke University, Inc., 122 N.C. 2005We recognize the non-prevailing party's right to immediate review because "`the essence of absolute immunity is its possessor's entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct in a civil damages action.'" Id. (quoting Epps v. Duke University, Inc., 122 N.C.App. 198, 201 , 468 S.E.2d 846, 849 , disc. rev. denied, 344 N.C. 436 , 476 S.E.2d 115 (1996) (citing Herndon v. Barrett, 101 N.C.App. 636, 639 , 400 S.E.2d 767, 769 (1991))). | 2 | 2005–2007 |
Harlow v. Fitzgerald
green
2 sentences1990Similarly, 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 law" (a standard set forth in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)), is also appealable as a "final decision" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. sec. 1291 . 1990Similarly, 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 law" (a standard set forth in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982)), is also appealable as a "final decision" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. sec. 1291 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.