Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
632 results
0.91s
District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 5, 2026
Plaintiff seeks clarification of the applicability of absolute and qualified immunity to ensure consistency in the application of the immunity doctrines and promote judicial economy by resolving immunity at an … Moreover, the applicability of the doctrines of absolute and qualified immunity to this case are not appropriate for declaratory judgment. Plaintiff's motion for declaratory judgment [DE 13] is denied. B.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 14, 2024
Thus White has established that Wood qualifies as a non-testifying expert under Rule 26(b)(4)(D) beginning on June 11, 2018.1 D. … And courts addressing the issue have found that there is no blanket immunity from discovery for settlement-related matters. See Att’ys Liab. Prot. Soc’y, Inc. v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownMendible v. Special Proceeding Department of the Wake County Court
District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 11, 2022
Such action is “clearly one against the state of North Carolina.” Bright v. McClure, 865 F.2d 623, 626 (4th Cir. 1989). … “The state has an Eleventh Amendment immunity from an action for damages, for the Congress has made no move to impose § 1983 liabilities upon states, and North Carolina has done nothing to waive its immunity.” Jd.
Cited 0 timesUnknownPatterson-El v. County of Cumberland
District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 7, 2024
Provided that a plaintiff’s claims are not clearly baseless, the court must weigh the factual allegations in plaintiff’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 plaintiffs. Adams v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown722 F. Supp. 1294 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 12, 1989
essential elements to be proved in any section § 1983 action are (1) that the defendant was acting under color of state law in the actions complained of; and (2) that the defendant deprived plaintiff of a right, privilege or immunity … This plaintiff was clearly inebriated on the morning of these incidents. He does not deny flailing about and shoving an officer to the ground when first stopped on the roadway.
Cited 173 timesPublishedDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 17, 2024
The defense has withheld various documents and items from Sharpe, claiming that they are immune from discovery under the work-product doctrine. … Once a document qualifies as opinion work-product it is immune from discovery, except in “very rare and exceptional circumstances.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownHarris v. State of North Carolina
240 F. Supp. 985 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 28, 1965
The burden of establishing discrimination in the selection of jurors is on the petitioner (Bailey v. … In Wiman, there were also other factors not present here which clearly contributed to the systematic exclusion.
Cited 4 timesPublished364 F. Supp. 3d 587 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 4, 2019
As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Livingston bears the burden of establishing that this court has subject-matter jurisdiction in this action. … The court also does not address the issue of qualified immunity. See , e.g. , Kisela v. Hughes , --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1148 , 1152-54, 200 L.Ed.2d 449 (2018) (per curiam); Dist. of Columbia v.
Cited 1 timesPublished615 F. Supp. 1155 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 15, 1985
Clearly, the law in this area is presently rather unsettled. … Yet other courts have considered the ripeness analysis to be a prerequisite to establishing subject matter jurisdiction.
Cited 3 timesPublishedDoe v. Cumberland County Board of Education
District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 21, 2021
As such, plaintiff plausibly alleges a clearly unreasonable response in light of the known circumstances, establishing deliberate indifference. See Fairfax Cty Sch. … basis of public official immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownAmwest Surety Insurance v. Vaughn
100 F. Supp. 2d 335 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 14, 2000
The North Carolina Appeals case cited by Defendants, in addition to being unpublished, involves a contract whose main purpose was to establish a lease. … Defendants have not proffered evidence to establish Amwest’s culpability for their mistake.
Cited 2 timesPublished981 F. Supp. 393 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 28, 1997
To establish a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination, Knezevic must demonstrate that (1) plaintiff was pregnant; (2) plaintiff was qualified for the position held; (3) plaintiff was terminated from the position; and … As Hipage operates in a customer-oriented business that involves considerable employee-customer interaction, Hipage has clearly met its burden of offering legitimate, non-diseriminatory justifications for the discharge.
Cited 2 timesPublishedFelix v. Service Insurance Company
District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 8, 2020
“A prior decision does not qualify for this third exception by being just maybe or probably wrong; it must . . . strike [the court] as wrong with the force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated dead fish.” TFWS, Inc. v. … Accordingly, plaintiffs have not reached the high standard of showing the court’s denial of their motion for summary judgment was clearly erroneous.
Cited 0 timesUnknown404 F. Supp. 2d 879 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 29, 2005
Plaintiff has the burden of establishing that the applicable factors support an injunction. Direx, 952 F.2d at 812 . … “At all times during the execution, those persons injecting the chemicals and the inmate are under observation of qualified, licensed medical professionals.” Polk Aff. ¶ 10.
Cited 7 timesPublishedWai Man Tom v. Hospitality Ventures LLC
355 F. Supp. 3d 329 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 18, 2018
The service charge "must have been included in the establishment's gross receipts," [ Hart v. … Therefore, plaintiff has not established a genuine issue of material fact as to the second element of the retaliation claim.
Cited 1 timesPublished595 F. Supp. 2d 636 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 7, 2009
Petitioner argues that he was clearly prejudiced by counsel’s error. … The court reasoned: This is because the hearsay did not qualify to be admitted under that exception or any other.
Cited 1 timesPublishedFeldman v. Law Enforcement Associates Corp.
779 F. Supp. 2d 472 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 10, 2011
Here, the ADAAA clearly provides that “[a]n impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (4)(D). … The ADAAA does not explicitly overturn the finding in Toyota Motor that temporary disabilities do not qualify for ADA protection. See Munoz v.
Cited 18 timesPublished128 B.R. 412 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 17, 1991
Rule 8013 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure provides that “findings of fact shall not be set aside [by the district court] unless clearly erroneous.” Bankr.R. 8013. … Such a “right to payment, whether or not the right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured” qualifies as a “claim
Cited 43 timesPublished867 F. Supp. 2d 793 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 9, 2012
Petitioner argues that each of the prior convictions relied upon to apply the career offender enhancement now no longer qualify as felony convictions in light of United States v. … Simmons’s sentence in light of Carachuri, holding that the opinion of the Supreme Court “clearly foreleose[d] reliance on Harp 1 ’ Simmons, 649 F.3d at 247 .
Cited 0 timesPublishedBaker v. Americredit Financial Services, Inc.
District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 2, 2025
DIO Transp., Inc., 317 F.R.D. 609, 612 (D.S.C. 2016) (“{T]he burden of proof is with the party objecting to the discovery to establish that the challenged production should not be permitted.”’) (citation omitted). … Sept. 20, 2017) (ordering production of subpoenaed documents subject to a protective order over objection that they were immune from disclosure as criminal investigation records pursuant to N.C. Gen.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna