Case law

Hudson v. State of North Carolina

158 F.R.D. 78 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Oct 13, 1994

Rental v. Harre, 983 F.2d 128, 130 (8th Cir.1993); Carwile v. Ray, 481 F.Supp. 33, 35 (E.D.Wash.1979). … Meehan v. Snow, 652 F.2d 274, 277 (2d Cir.1981).

Shenandoah Life Insurance v. Hawes

37 F.R.D. 526 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 30, 1965

See Hoffman v. Weider, 217 F.Supp. 172 (D.C., N.J., 1963); Lehmann Trading Corp. v. J & H Stolow, Inc., 184 F.Supp. 21 (S.D., N.Y., 1960); and Dunwalke Farm, Inc. v. … Lopez v. Resort Airlines, 18 F.R.D. 37 (S.D., N.Y., 1955); U. S. Plywood Corp. v. Hudson Lumber Co., 17 F.R.D. 258 (S.D., N.Y., 1955); and Hill, Brown Corp. v. Bosler, 14 F.R.D. 170 (D.C., R.I., 1953).

Boney v. Trs. of Cape Fear Cmty. Coll.

366 F. Supp. 3d 756 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 5, 2019

DuPont de Nemours & Co. , 324 F.3d 761 , 764-65 (4th Cir. 2003) ; Brown v. Goodwill Indus. of E.N.C., Inc. , No. 4:17-CV-144-D, 361 F.Supp.3d 558 , 562-63, 2019 WL 80444 , at *3 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 2, 2019) (unpublished). … See id. at 585-86 ; Brown , 361 F.Supp.3d at 563 -64 , 2019 WL 80444 , at *4. Rather, the employee must plausibly allege that the motive to discriminate was at least one of the employer's motives.

Lanier Const. Co., Inc. v. CITY OF CLINTON, NC

812 F. Supp. 2d 696 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 6, 2011

Section 143-129(b) also provides that “[proposals may be rejected for any reason determined by the board or governing body to be in the best interest of the unit. … See, e.g., Robertson v.

Brown

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 10, 2025

BROWN, on behalf of ) herself and as the Executor of the ) Estate of Kurt O. … Beck v. PACE Int'l Union, 551 U.S. 96, 101 (2007). In Moon v.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. British-American Corp.

744 F. Supp. 116 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 8, 1990

Washington v. M/V Dilkara, 470 F.Supp. 437, 439 (W.D.Wash.1979). In considering this motion, the court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true. United States v. … United States v. McPherson, 631 F.Supp. 269, 272 (M.D.N.C.1986).

Fate v. Dixon

649 F. Supp. 551 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 1, 1986

Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education, 465 U.S. 75 , 104 S.Ct. 892, 894, n. 1 , 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984). Both of these concepts must be considered in this ruling. A. … Nash County Board of Education v. Biltmore Company, 640 F.2d 484 , at 494 (4th Cir.1981). However honest that observation, it contributes little to the analytical process.

Watson v. Providence Washington Ins. Co.

106 F. Supp. 244 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 9, 1952

Klein v. … Some of these cases are Mattson v. Connecticut Fire Insurance Co., D. C., 80 F.Supp. 101 ; Brown v. Jerome, 9 Cir., 298 F. 1 ; Ætna Insurance Co. v. Sacramento Stockton S. S. Co., 9 Cir., 273 F. 55 ; Moores v.

Wake Stone Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

995 F. Supp. 612 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 23, 1998

Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 39 F.3d 515, 518 (4th Cir.1994) (quoting Shaw v. … Raymond U v. Duke University, 91 N.C.App. 171 , 371 S.E.2d 701, 708 , rev’w denied, 323 N.C. 629 , 374 S.E.2d 590 (1988), citing Renwick v.

Williams v. PNC Bank N.A.

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 4, 2025

See Brown v. Univ. of N. Carolina Health Care Sys., No. 1:20-CV-0086, 2021 WL 512222, at *8 (M.D.N.C. … Feb. 11, 2021) (“While one can appreciate that the EEOC composed the charge on behalf of Brown and that the charge was based upon her initial inquiry, Brown was not required to sign a charge that did not fairly represent

Riley v. Murdock

890 F. Supp. 444 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 13, 1995

See EEOC v. … Keith v. Aldridge, 900 F.2d 736, 739 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 900 , 111 S.Ct. 257 , 112 L.Ed.2d 215 (1990) (quoting Nash County Board of Education v. Biltmore Co., 640 F.2d 484, 486 (4th Cir.1981)).

Ross v. Bounds

373 F. Supp. 450 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 26, 1974

See Jolly v. Brown, Mem.Dec.No. 13,405 (4th Cir. June 26, 1970); Daye v. Rice, Mem.Dec.No. 13,408 (4th Cir. July 23, 1969). … See Edwards v. Duncan, 355 F.2d 993 (4th Cir. 1966); and Hirons v. Director, 351 F.2d 613 (4th Cir. 1965).

Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd.

931 F. Supp. 1280 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 5, 1996

PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262 (7th Cir.1995); Travenol Laboratories, Inc. v. Turner, 30 N.C.App. 686 , 228 S.E.2d 478 (1976). … Glaxo erroneously relies upon Atlas Powder Co. v.

Crown Crafts, Inc. v. Aldrich

148 F.R.D. 151 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 2, 1993

Smith Corp. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 530 F.2d 515 , 525 (3d Cir.1976)). … Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 90 , 94 S.Ct. 937, 953 , 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974) (quoting Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass’n v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C.Cir.1958)).

Luther v. Vanyur

14 F. Supp. 2d 773 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 3, 1997

Brown, 920 F.2d 1212, 1217 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 925 , 111 S.Ct. 2034 , 114 L.Ed.2d 119 (1991); Salley v. United States, 786 F.2d 546, 547 (2d Cir.1986). … Accord Brown v.

Droberg

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

Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 283 (1986). … School Board of City of Manassas, Va., 141 F.3d 524, 529 (4th Cir. 1998). At the hearing before the undersigned, defendant acknowledged the Supreme Court’s decision in A. J. T. by & through A. T. v.

Felix v. Doughtie

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 8, 2021

See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976) (explaining that a “pro se document is to be liberally construed”); United States v. Brown, 797 F. App’x 85, 89 (4th Cir. 2019). … Wilcox v. Brown, 877 F.3d 161, 170 (4th Cir. 2017) (quotations omitted); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S.

Bryant v. Locklear

947 F. Supp. 915 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 22, 1996

Board of Governors of the Univ. of N.C. v. … See Garrett v. Clarke County Bd. of Edue., 857 F.Supp. 949, 953 (S.D.Ala.1994) (punitives in Title VII claim may not be recovered against school board and individual superintendents in their official capacities). B.

McCollum v. Robeson County

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 25, 2021

“Relevance is typically a low bar to the admissibility of evidence Jones v. Ford Motor Co., 204 F. App’x 280, 283 (4th Cir. 2006). … Patrick v. City of Chicago, 974 F.3d 824, 833 (7th Cir. 2020).

Holden v. Raleigh Restaurant Concepts, Inc.

141 F. Supp. 3d 454 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 3, 2015

See Wiseman v. First Citizens Bank & Tr. Co., 215 F.R.D. 507, 509 (W.D.N.C.2003) (quoting Potter v. Potter, 199 F.R.D. 550, 553 (D.Md.2001)). *459 III. … Stewart v. U.S. Corrections Corp., No. 1:98CV173-C, 1999 WL 33321101 , at *2 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 17, 1999) (citing Station Assocs., Inc. v.