Case law

Feldstein v. Nash Community Health Services, Inc.

51 F. Supp. 2d 673 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 16, 1999

It is a general principle of contract law that “[i]t must be presumed the parties intended what the language used clearly expresses, ... and the contract must be construed to mean what on its face it purports to mean.... … Moreover, the benefits were presumably offered to the physician in Polk, at least in part, in an attempt to help him establish a practice in a new location.

Wilson ex rel. Hinn v. North Carolina

981 F. Supp. 397 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 30, 1997

To establish a violation under either the RA or the ADA, plaintiff must prove that (1) he has a disability; (2) he is otherwise qualified for the benefit in question; and (3) he was excluded from the benefit due to discrimination … Defendants also argue that plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief on his ADA claim because he cannot establish an ongoing violation.

Moore v. Keller

917 F. Supp. 2d 471 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 30, 2012

was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. … Only after a petitioner establishes that the state court’s adjudication of his claims was “contrary to” or an “unreasonable application of’ clearly established federal law, or was “based on an unreasonable determination of

Blumenshine v. Vance County Board of Education

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 24, 2025

To bring a claim under Title II of the ADA, “the plaintiff must establish: (1) that plaintiff has a disability; (2) that plaintiff is otherwise qualified for the benefit or program in question; and (3) that plaintiff was … VCB is governmentally immune from such claims.

Zito v. North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 27, 2020

CAMA governs development of North Carolina’s ocean areas and establishes various rules and regulations. See id. at [{] 20-22. … As for waiver, the Zitos have alleged no facts to demonstrate that the Commission has clearly and unequivocally waived immunity to a federal takings claims in federal court. See, e.g., Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v.

Ray v. State of North Carolina

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 20, 2025

Second, Plaintiff objects to Judge Numbers’ finding as to qualified immunity. Jd. at 6. However, despite Plaintiffs contention, Judge Numbers explicitly declined to conduct a qualified immunity analysis. … To establish a claim under § 1983, “a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting

York v. Lutz

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 25, 2025

Justification: Qualified Immunity Based on Legitimate Business Interest The fourth element of a tortious interference claim is that the defendant acted without Justification. Schwarz, 270 N.C. App. at 729-30. … Otherwise, even if the interfering co-employee was partially motivated by malice, she is still entitled to qualified immunity as long she was partially motivated by a legitimate business interest.

Zhang v. O'Neal

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 25, 2025

McClure, 865 F.2d 623, 626 (4th Cir. 1989) (“action against [a Clerk of Superior Court] in his official capacity is clearly one against the state of North Carolina”); see also N.C. Gen. … . §§ 7A-102, 7A-355 (establishing assistant clerk and trial court administrator as officials of North Carolina’s General Court of Justice).

Campbell v. Greiner

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

These allegations fail to establish a pattern of similar violations. Connick, 563 U.S. at 63; Carter, 164 F.3d at 219. … The policy includes a provision stating that it is not intended as a waiver, and provides coverage only for claims to which governmental immunity is clearly inapplicable or for which a court determines immunity is not applicable

Evans v. UDR, INC.

644 F. Supp. 2d 675 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 24, 2009

Talley’s criminal history prevented him from being an otherwise qualified individual. Id. … The court will accordingly deem these facts to be established for purposes of the motion. DISCUSSION I.

Turner v. Warren County Board of Education

313 F. Supp. 380 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 23, 1970

attended by all students within the boundaries of the districts without discrimination as to race or color, and that said Acts are constitutional on their face and do not deprive plaintiffs of any rights, privileges or immunities … County School Board of New Kent County, 391 U.S. 430, 437 , 88 S.Ct. 1689, 1694 , 20 L.Ed.2d 716 (1968), the Court said: “School boards such as the respondent then operating state-compelled dual systems were nevertheless clearly

Carlos A. Alford v. Bill Nelson, Ashley White, Rob Blake, and Regina Neal-Mujahid

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 10, 2026

The court may “pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” Neitzke, 490 U.S. at 327. … The burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction rests on the party invoking jurisdiction, here the plaintiff. Adams v.

Paul v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 26, 2024

“[T]he principle of sovereign immunity is a constitutional limitation on the federal judicial power established in Art. III.” Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. … sovereign immunity with a valid exercise of its powers.

Washington v. Department Of The Navy

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 12, 2020

The amount claimed is hot peociniecaith “property damage” or “personal injury” but is clearly identified as for “wrongfil death.” … The proscription is not qualified for other factors such as cost.

Garysburg Mfg. Co. v. Pender County

42 F.2d 500 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 5, 1930

Such being the gravity of this ease and some of the principles that must govern its consideration, it seems needless to quote any authority in support of the proposition, that the jurisdiction of this court must likewise clearly … The Fourteenth Amendment is now imbedded in the foundation of a common and universal justice, and its origin was in the same spirit, and for the same purpose, that established the doctrine of “due process of law” embodied

Dunn Jr. v. Holden

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 23, 2024

Provided that a party’s claims are not clearly baseless, the court must weigh the factual allegations in the party’s favor in its frivolity analysis. Denton, 504 U.S. at 32. … The burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction rests on the party invoking jurisdiction, here, the plaintiff. Adams v.

North Carolina Shellfish Growers Ass'n v. Holly Ridge Associates, LLC

278 F. Supp. 2d 654 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 25, 2003

Accordingly, the Court finds that the Tract itself qualifies as a point source. d. … Genuine issues of material fact clearly exist with respect to the purposes behind Defendants’ ditching activities.

I.M. v. Granville County Board of Education

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 16, 2022

“Rather, a plaintiff must establish . . . … Under the fourth element, a school acts with deliberate indifference “where its response . . . or lack thereof is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.” S.B. ex rel. A.L. v.

Caraway v. City of Elizabeth City, North Carolina

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 11, 2020

For those claims, information not on the record prior to trial emerged through direct and cross- examination of witnesses, which permitted the court to grant defendants’ Rule 50(a) motion on the basis of qualified immunity … Thus, the claims were clearly not frivolous.

Garvey v. Fayetteville State University

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 19, 2025

Defendant has established for the purposes of its motion that a summons has not been issued to the defendant, and the Court thus lacks personal jurisdiction over defendant. … Plaintiff's § 1983 claim against defendant also fails, as defendant has not waived Eleventh Amendment immunity for such suits and it is not a person subject to suit under § 1983. See Biggs v. N.