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.
11 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hawkins v. Stategreen2 sentences2024In such cases, “[b]ecause malice encompasses intent, . . . if a party alleges an intentional tort claim, the doctrine of qualified immunity does not immunize public officials . . . from suit in their individual capacities.” Hawkins v. State, 117 N.C. 2024App. 615, 630 , 453 S.E.2d 233, 242 (applying the rule in a case where the plaintiff alleges, inter alia, intentional infliction of emotional distress), disc. rev. denied, 342 N.C. 188 , 463 S.E.2d 79 (1995); see also Wells, 152 N.C. | 3 | 3 |
Beck v. City of Durhamgreen2 sentences2021Thus, only tortious “actions that are malicious, corrupt, or outside the scope of official duties will pierce the cloak of official immunity.” Id. (citation, internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted). “[I]f the plaintiff alleges an intentional tort claim, a determination of governmental immunity is unnecessary since, in such cases, neither a public official nor a public employee is immunized from suit in his individual capacity.” Beck v. City of Durham, 154 N.C. 2021JOHNSON 2021-NCCOA-489 Opinion of the Court tortious “actions that are malicious, corrupt, or outside the scope of official duties will pierce the cloak of official immunity.” Id. (citation, internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted). “[I]f the plaintiff alleges an intentional tort claim, a determination of governmental immunity is unnecessary since, in such cases, neither a public official nor a public employee is immunized from suit in his individual capacity.” Beck v. City of Durham, 154 N.C. | 3 | 3 |
Wells v. North Carolina Department of Correctiongreen2 sentences2024App. 615, 630 , 453 S.E.2d 233, 242 (applying the rule in a case where the plaintiff alleges, inter alia, intentional infliction of emotional distress), disc. rev. denied, 342 N.C. 188 , 463 S.E.2d 79 (1995); see also Wells, 152 N.C. 2002However, “if the plaintiff alleges an intentional tort claim, a determination [of governmental immunity] is unnecessary since, in such cases, neither a public official nor a public employee is immunized from suit in his individual capacity.” Wells v. North Carolina Dept. of Correction, 152 N.C. | 2 | 2 |
Harwood v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2013See id. 2013See id. | 1 | 1 |
Jensen v. Sport Bowl, Inc.green2 sentences2002Under the intentional tort exception, workers may bring suit against their employers at common law only `when an ordinary, reasonable, prudent person would believe an injury was substantially certain to result from [the employer's] conduct.'" Jensen v. Sport Bowl, Inc., 469 N.W.2d 370, 371 (S.D. 1991) (citing VerBouwens v. Hamm Wood Products, 334 N.W.2d 874, 876 (S.D.1983) (emphasis in original)). 2002Under the intentional tort exception, workers may bring suit against their employers at common law only ‘when an ordinary, reasonable, prudent person would believe an injury was substantially certain to result from [the employer’s] conduct.’ ” Jensen v. Sport Bowl, Inc., 469 N.W.2d 370, 371 (S.D. 1991) (citing VerBouwens v. Hamm Wood Products, 334 N.W.2d 874, 876 (S.D. 1983) (emphasis in original)). | 1 | 1 |
VerBouwens v. Hamm Wood Productsgreen2 sentences2002Under the intentional tort exception, workers may bring suit against their employers at common law only `when an ordinary, reasonable, prudent person would believe an injury was substantially certain to result from [the employer's] conduct.'" Jensen v. Sport Bowl, Inc., 469 N.W.2d 370, 371 (S.D. 1991) (citing VerBouwens v. Hamm Wood Products, 334 N.W.2d 874, 876 (S.D.1983) (emphasis in original)). 2002Under the intentional tort exception, workers may bring suit against their employers at common law only ‘when an ordinary, reasonable, prudent person would believe an injury was substantially certain to result from [the employer’s] conduct.’ ” Jensen v. Sport Bowl, Inc., 469 N.W.2d 370, 371 (S.D. 1991) (citing VerBouwens v. Hamm Wood Products, 334 N.W.2d 874, 876 (S.D. 1983) (emphasis in original)). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Turner v. City of Greenville
green
2 sentences2021Thus, only tortious “actions that are malicious, corrupt, or outside the scope of official duties will pierce the cloak of official immunity.” Id. (citation, internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted). “[I]f the plaintiff alleges an intentional tort claim, a determination of governmental immunity is unnecessary since, in such cases, neither a public official nor a public employee is immunized from suit in his individual capacity.” Beck v. City of Durham, 154 N.C. 2021JOHNSON 2021-NCCOA-489 Opinion of the Court tortious “actions that are malicious, corrupt, or outside the scope of official duties will pierce the cloak of official immunity.” Id. (citation, internal quotation marks, brackets, and ellipsis omitted). “[I]f the plaintiff alleges an intentional tort claim, a determination of governmental immunity is unnecessary since, in such cases, neither a public official nor a public employee is immunized from suit in his individual capacity.” Beck v. City of Durham, 154 N.C. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Powell v. S & G PRESTRESS CO.
neutral
1 sentence2024App. 615, 630 , 453 S.E.2d 233, 242 (applying the rule in a case where the plaintiff alleges, inter alia, intentional infliction of emotional distress), disc. rev. denied, 342 N.C. 188 , 463 S.E.2d 79 (1995); see also Wells, 152 N.C. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Hawkins v. State
neutral
1 sentence2024App. 615, 630 , 453 S.E.2d 233, 242 (applying the rule in a case where the plaintiff alleges, inter alia, intentional infliction of emotional distress), disc. rev. denied, 342 N.C. 188 , 463 S.E.2d 79 (1995); see also Wells, 152 N.C. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co.
green
2 sentences2002The legislature in Michigan has by statute rejected the "substantially certain" test announced in Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co., 427 Mich. 1 , 398 N.W.2d 882 (1986), and adopted a more rigorous "true intentional tort" standard as the proper test for determining the presence of an intentional tort to overcome the exclusivity of their workers' compensation provisions. 2002The legislature in Michigan has by statute rejected the "substantially certain" test announced in Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co., 427 Mich. 1 , 398 N.W.2d 882 (1986), and adopted a more rigorous "true intentional tort" standard as the proper test for determining the presence of an intentional tort to overcome the exclusivity of their workers' compensation provisions. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Dunleavy v. YATES CONST. CO., INC.
green
1 sentence1993Although plaintiff is correct in her argument that Woodson is to be applied retroactively if the facts are applicable, Dunleavy v. Yates Construction Company, Inc., 106 N.C. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Southern Railway Co. v. O'Boyle Tank Lines, Inc.
green
1 sentence1990App. 1 , 318 S.E.2d 872 (1984), and similar cases wherein it was held that an assignment of a personal injury claim or an intentional tort claim was ineffective under common law and was contrary to public policy. | 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.