Case law

Hedgepeth v. Nash County

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 14, 2024

immunity because plaintiff has not demonstrated a violation of a “clearly established right” based on the present record. … “Before concluding that an officer has breached a clearly established right,” the court “must identify a case where an officer acting under similar circumstances was held to have violated the Fourth Amendment.”

United States v. North Carolina

914 F. Supp. 1257 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 8, 1996

First, the literal text of § 2000e-6 described above, by which this case is brought, clearly mandates discriminatory intent as a required element of the cause of action. … The subsection clearly announces that it is intended to set forth methods for establishing “an unlawful employment practice.”

Howard v. College of the Albemarle

262 F. Supp. 3d 322 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 27, 2017

Howard responds that his own testimony shows,he was qualified and performing his job duties satisfactorily. See [D.E. 58] 2-6. … To establish a prima facie case for his ADA claim, Howard must “produce evidence sufficient to demonstrate that (1) he was a qualified individual with a disability; (2) he was discharged; (3) he was fulfilling his employer

Old South Apparel, LLC v. JEB Designs, Inc.

272 F. Supp. 3d 734 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 26, 2017

The release, which plaintiff Hair signed voluntarily and in exchange for consideration, clearly governs the fate of the 1,498 shirts. … To establish trademark infringement, a plaintiff must prove that it owns a valid and protectable mark, and that the defendant’s use of a “reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation” of that mark creates a likelihood

Peele v. Morton

396 F. Supp. 584 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 5, 1975

In short, this approach visualizes the Secretary’s regulatory power as being qualified and delimited by the. statutory right conferred on the villagers of the Outer Banks. … Clearly there must have been some special impetus for the Congress to give recognition to the commercial fishermen of North Carolina’s Outer Banks.

United States v. Dillon Supply Co.

314 F. Supp. 956 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 2, 1969

He took a third test before he qualified. He testified he was told he could use the company’s equipment and facilities to practice welding. … Not only has the plaintiff failed in its burden, but the evidence clearly establishes defendant is not in violation of the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The action is therefore dismissed. .

Kelly v. State of North Carolina

276 F. Supp. 200 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Oct 19, 1967

. § 2254 , since relief on this contention would clearly be foreclosed in the state courts. … It is well established that under such circumstances jurisdiction exists in the federal district court to entertain the petition and to review the constitutionality of the trial and imprisonment.” Patton v.

Fraver v. North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance

643 F. Supp. 633 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 3, 1985

The qualified plan includes the company’s highly compensated, management employees who are on salary. … Thus, the Conference Committee Report clearly indicates the different areas of jurisdiction for the Federal and State Courts.

Eaton v. Grubbs

216 F. Supp. 465 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 9, 1963

Judge Soper, speaking for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, said: “* * * (T)he facts clearly show that when the present suit was brought, and for years before, the hospital was not an instrumentality of the State but a … hospital in the City and County, offering the highest standard of medical care, and is the chosen instrumentality of the City and County for furnishing medical care to their white citizens and affording a place to practice for qualified

Thornton v. Bowen

639 F. Supp. 154 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 28, 1986

The Rules of Civil Preocedure establish specific procedures and timetables for the filing, processing, and disposition of civil cases. … First, under the facts of this case the contention is without support since defendant’s answer clearly contests the substance of plaintiffs position.

Cooke v. United States Bureau of Prisons

926 F. Supp. 2d 720 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 27, 2013

Section 39.170 establishes this process. Id. … May 18, 2012) (unpublished) (“There is no clearly defined law which would require the counselor!

Alexander v. Civil Air Patrol

134 F. Supp. 691 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 26, 1955

They explain the Liaison Officer’s position more clearly than a thousand words on many pages. … “The purpose of the AF-CAP Liaison Officer program is to establish with each Wing, qualified personnel who, by virtue of their experience, background, training, and aptitude are capable of: “a.

Spencer v. Hyde County

959 F. Supp. 721 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 27, 1997

The Monahan court also pointed out that “[t]he FLSA is clearly structured to provide workers with specific minimum protections against excessive work hours and substandard wages.” Id. (citation omitted). … Plaintiffs, however, complain that the lack of other qualified personnel on the island makes it difficult to switch shifts.

Hurtt v. The Town of Hope Mills

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 6, 2022

To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … Because dismissal is warranted on this basis, the court does not reach defendants’ alternative argument based upon qualified immunity.

Straw v. State of North Carolina

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 3, 2020

Generally, “the United States is immune from suit unless it waives that immunity.” Jn re KBR, Inc., Burn Pit Litig., 744 F.3d 326, 341 (4th Cir. 2014). … In order to establish a violation of either the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he has a disability, (2) he is otherwise qualified to receive the benefits of a public service, program

Thompson v. Blessed Home Inc.

22 F. Supp. 3d 542 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 19, 2014

Plaintiff need not establish that Blessed is an enterprise engaged in commerce under § 203(s)(l)(A) if he can establish that it is such an enterprise under § 203(1)(B) or (C). … These four factors clearly support a find *550 ing that the group home was not a private home.

United States v. State of NC

914 F. Supp. 1257 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 8, 1996

First, the literal text of § 2000e-6 described above, by which this case is brought, clearly mandates discriminatory intent as a required element of the cause of action. … The subsection clearly announces that it is intended to set forth methods for establishing "an unlawful employment practice."

Cheatham v. Central Carolina Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Cheatham)

91 B.R. 382 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 20, 1988

The first view is clearly set forth in the case of In re Becker, 51 B.R. 975 (Bankr.D.Minn.1985). … In the case presently before the court, the debtor and creditor voluntarily entered into an agreement which established the amount of adequate protection to be paid.

Oates v. Lolita Chapman

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 14, 2020

Plaintiff also suggests that she can proceed on her conspiracy claim against defendants because it is clearly established that “due process rights can be violated where defendants had actual knowledge of plaintiff’s innocence … Thus, plaintiff’s § 1983 conspiracy claims against defendants fail as a matter of law, and the court does not reach defendants’ additional defenses of qualified immunity.

Smith v. Raleigh District of the North Carolina Conference of the United Methodist Church

63 F. Supp. 2d 694 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 27, 1999

Defendants’ Immunity Under First Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. United States Constitution, Amendment I. … The Rayburn court clearly limited its holding to review of an employment decision of the type at issue in that case.