Case law

VonBlohn

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 7, 2026

At the time he was ready to purchase his home, plaintiff alleges that he would have been able to qualify for a 30-year fixed-rate loan with an interest rate of 6.75% or lower or an adjustable-rate loan with an initial … “The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing” the elements of standing. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561.

D.R. v. Wake County Board of Education

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 15, 2022

“[T]he party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing its existence.” Steel Co., 523 US. at 104; see Evans v. B.F. Perkins Co., 166 F.3d 642, 647 (4th Cir. 1999). … Moreover, the questions of governmental immunity and standing doctrine under North Carolina law concerning plaintiffs’ remaining claim are better addressed by the North Carolina courts.

North Carolina Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Leake

872 F. Supp. 2d 466 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 18, 2012

Two provisions in Article 22D establish the matching funds scheme: the reporting requirements provision and the matching funds provision. Under N.C. … In the case of a primary, the trigger equals the maximum qualifying contribution for participating candidates.

Darden v. O'Malley

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 15, 2023

And Courts in the Fourth Circuit “have awarded disability benefits without remand where the record clearly establishes the claimant’s entitlement to benefits and another ALJ hearing on remand would serve no useful purpose … The record clearly establishes that Darden suffers from pain that severely limits her ability to stand or walk during the day much less lift objects.

A&C Gaming, LLC v. BHG Financial, LLC

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

Hamm, 414 So. 2d 1071, (Fla. 1982) explains how to calculate a loan’s effective interest rate given a qualifying withholding of principal that is in the nature of interest under Fla. Stat. § 687.03(3). … “Judgment on the pleadings is not properly granted unless the moving party has clearly established that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and the party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Whaley v. Old Dominion Tobacco Co.

842 F. Supp. 190 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 11, 1994

Plaintiff argues that the Old Dominion’s employment manual “established] a written contract between [Old Dominion] and [the plaintiff].” Pl.’s Resp. to Mot. for Summ.J. at 1, ¶3. … The court further finds that under North Carolina law, the plaintiff was apparently an “at-will” employee whose employment manual probably did not qualify as an employment contract. See Salt v.

Cosgrove v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance

317 F. Supp. 2d 616 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 19, 2004

The issue of whether Plaintiff demonstrated satisfactory proof of loss in order to qualify for benefits is at the heart of this dispute. … Despite the substantive case law explaining this standard of review, there are few case examples establishing how this standard is to be applied in practice.

Cape Fear Public Utility Authority v. The Chemours Company FC, LLC

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

Cape Fear fails to establish that Magistrate Judge Numbers’s factual findings were clearly erroneous or that Magistrate Judge Numbers misinterpreted or misapplied applicable law. … Cape Fear fails to establish that Magistrate Judge Numbers’s factual findings were clearly erroneous or that Magistrate Judge Numbers misinterpreted or misapplied applicable law.

LaBudde

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 12, 2025

A breach of contract is not an act that qualifies as unfair or deceptive under the UDTPA. Barbour v. Fidelity Life Ass’n, 361 F. Supp. 3d 565, 573 (E.D.N.C. 2019). … Nor did Phoenix violate the UDTPA by failing to clearly affirm or deny coverage.

United States v. Hicks

631 F. Supp. 2d 725 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 6, 2009

Ultimately, the Fourth Circuit concluded that in light of the Davis decision, admitting a statement based on an ambiguous invocation of the right to remain silent was not contrary to clearly established federal law. … However, it is telling that the actual language in Morgan contains the important qualifier “only”; “Renewed warnings are necessary only if “the circumstances [have] changed so seriously that [the defendant’s] answers no longer

United States v. Comstock

507 F. Supp. 2d 522 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 7, 2007

The charges and convictions that qualify as sexually violent offenses are expressly enumerated by the Kansas statute. … We do not mean to suggest that subjects of traditional state concern are immune from congressional regulation when they fall within Congress’s Article I powers.

Suarez v. Southern Carlson

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Oct 27, 2023

As for whether Suarez was qualified to manage the Wilmington store, the record lacks any admissible evidence that Suarez was qualified to manage the Wilmington store. … “The defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence,” legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the adverse employment action. Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affs. v.

Clinchfield Railroad v. Lynch

605 F. Supp. 1005 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 22, 1985

By contrast, N.C.G.S. § 105-277(a) is clearly designed to benefit the tobacco industry particularly those businesses which warehouse tobacco. … However, those ratios clearly are not 100 per cent, and defendants have not provided the court with a “meaningful alternative” to the real estate ratios.

Ray v. Mitchell

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 7, 2025

The court must dismiss any portion of the complaint it determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief … Yee, 887 F.3d 927, 937 (9th Cir. 2018) (noting risk of erroneous deprivation was low where the prior proceedings established facts supporting plaintiff’s suspension)).

Henderson v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 29, 2024

So to establish a claim for disability discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must allege facts (1) that he has a disability, (2) that he is a qualified individual for the employment opportunity, and (3) that the … He alleges only that he applied for various jobs with defendants; he was qualified; he was denied; he was more qualified than others; he was in a different protected class or combination of protected classes; and he was

Shaw v. Hunt

861 F. Supp. 408 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 22, 1994

I and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, they failed to state a legally cognizable claim. … Though Heckler was a gender case rather than a race case, it too involved the use of a suspect classification to make it more difficult for certain otherwise qualified persons to obtain a particular government benefit.

Koukuntla v. Toll Brothers Real Estate, Inc.

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 18, 2025

immunity, Schmitz v. … “Where a protective order is sought, the moving party bears the burden of establishing good cause.

DirecTV, Inc. v. Tolson

498 F. Supp. 2d 784 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 20, 2007

In Hibbs , citizens of Arizona challenged a state tax credit under the Establishment Clause. … Taxpayers qualified for the credit by contributing money to certain nonprofit organizations that, in turn, funded scholarship grants.

Lowe v. O'Malley

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 25, 2024

The ALJ may not have used the words “anxiety” or “low stress,” but these limitations were clearly implemented for the same purposes. … Claimant argues that they committed error by holding that subjective, lay evidence did not qualify as medical documentation. DE 20 at 7.

Ross v. Washington Mutual Bank

566 F. Supp. 2d 468 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 2, 2008

provisions of the FCRA, the FCRA’s statutory scheme calls for the consumer’s remedy generally to be found within sections 1681n or 1681o of the FCRA. 5 Section 1681h(e)-then contains a general bar (sometimes described as qualified … immunity) on a consumer’s action in the nature of defamation, invasion of privacy, or negligence “based on information disclosed pursuant to section 1681g, 1681h, or 1681m ... or based on information disclosed by a user