Case law

United States v. Atlantic Coast Line R.

206 F. 190 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 9, 1913

The mere use of its name in a suit for the benefit of a private suitor cannot extend its immunity as a sovereign government to said private suitor, whereby he can avoid and escape the scrutiny of a court of equity into the … ’ it, to become wet, lost, injured, or destroyed, or conveying or keeping it in a place or manner that exposes it to depredation, loss, or injury.” y The act complained of, and for which the fine of $50Q was imposed, is clearly

Pen-Tech Associates, Inc. v. Kang

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 17, 2023

The Parties reserve the right to dispute whether the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine or any other privilege or immunity apply to any documents or information provided by the designating Subject Person and … A Subject Person’s rights pursuant to this Order may only be waived by a writing clearly evidencing its intent to waive such rights. 12 23.

Canady v. Holder

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 3, 2022

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion to modify that part of the court’s order entered July 8, 2021, dismissing counts one through three of plaintiff’s complaint based on qualified immunity. … Thus, recklessness can be established by showing “an officer acted ‘with a high degree of awareness of [a statement’s] probable falsity,’ that is, ‘when viewing all the evidence, the affiant must have entertained serious

Nadendla v. WakeMed

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Oct 29, 2020

The plaintiff bears the burden to establish subject matter jurisdiction. … Plaintiff’s response simply says that she has “clearly” alleged defendant acted in bad faith regarding her contract and by wrongfully denying her clinical privileges.

Davis v. Davis

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 10, 2022

Put differently, “[a] court may not impose punishment in a civil contempt proceeding when it is clearly established that the alleged contemnor is unable to comply with the terms of the order.” … Accordingly, it is not “clearly established that the alleged contemnor is unable to comply with” the □ court’s orders. Turner, 564 US. at 442. 12.

Krausz Industries Ltd. v. Smith-Blair, Inc.

122 F. Supp. 3d 381 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 3, 2015

Thus, by distinguishing the Straub patent, the application does not clearly and unmistakably restrict “torn off’ to an irreversible severing or breaking of a permanent physical connection. … It is well-established that “conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court.” Phillips, 415 F.3d. at 1318.

Fischman v. MediaStratX, LLC

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 10, 2021

A court should grant the motion if “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.” Park Univ. Enters. v. Am. … or obligation on a defendant “and to grant a plaintiff a cause of action to sue over the defendant’s violation of that statutory prohibition” is instructive “in determining whether a harm is sufficiently concrete to qualify

Coppedge v. Franklin County Board of Education

273 F. Supp. 289 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 21, 1967

the operation of the public school system of Franklin County, and enjoined from racial discrimination in staff and faculty assignment and employment, directed to fill vacant teacher positions in the future with the best qualified … Faculties and staffs of the several schools in Franklin County remain almost entirely segregated, with the effect that each school in the county system is clearly racially identifiable by the composition of its faculty.

Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Alcan Aluminum Corp.

921 F. Supp. 2d 488 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 1, 2013

As to the second element above: “An entity may qualify as an arranger under [42 U.S.C] § 9607(a)(3) when it takes intentional steps to dispose of a hazardous substance.” Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. … Clearly, the transformers that Georgia Power sold to Ward had marketable value. Ward Dep. 223. Another factor for the court to consider is the usefulness of the materials at the time they were sold.

Shreve v. Limpert

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 15, 2019

She also lobs against any attempt by defendants Parrish, Jenkins, and Wiggs to raise the shield of qualified immunity, though not mentioned in movants’ papers. … To state a claim for false arrest under 42 U.S.C § 1983, a plaintiff must establish that the arresting officer lacked probable cause. Street v.

Riley v. Murdock

828 F. Supp. 1215 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jul 30, 1993

Not surprisingly, plaintiffs respond by contending that all of the Cannon Trust defendants qualify as “fiduciaries” under ERISA. … Citing general principles of trust law, plaintiffs argue that no immunity exists for a trust whose res is used in an alleged fraudulent transaction.

United States v. Waste Industries

556 F. Supp. 1301 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 30, 1982

Existing law is clearly inadequate to deal with this massive problem.” H.R.Rep. 1016, supra, at 17-18, reprinted in 1980, U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News at 6120. … This broad-based source of redress is qualified by the caveat “that new federal laws and new federal regulations may in time pre-empt the field of federal common law of nuisance.” Id. at 107 , 92 S.Ct. at 1395 .

Altaweel v. Longent LLC

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 9, 2022

Termination is clearly a form of adverse employment action. Roberts v. Glenn Indus. Grp., Inc., 998 F.3d 111, 122-23 (4th Cir. 2021). … As an initial matter, causation in this case is not established through temporal proximity alone.

Augustson v. Bank of America, N.A.

864 F. Supp. 2d 422 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 29, 2012

In marketing these loans, Bank of America offered to “waive or pay all fees for services or products required by the Bank in order to provide a fixed mortgage to qualifying borrowers.... ” Id.; Pis.’ Mem. Opp’n Mot. … The court assumes that plaintiffs intend to establish Bank of America’s fraudulent intent through circumstantial evidence.

Halscott Megaro, P.A. v. McCollum

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 2, 2022

The facts found by the DHC, which have preclusive effect in this action, plainly establish that Megaro, and by extension his privy, plaintiff law firm, engaged in conduct that was dishonest, deceitful, fraudulent, unfair … to quasi-judicial immunity.

Bryant v. Newton

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 19, 2024

to IFP status, the court is required to dismiss all or part of an action found to be frivolous or malicious, which fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted, or which seeks money damages from a defendant immune … The court is permitted to “pierce the veil of the complaint’s factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless.” , 490 U.S. at 327.

Robeson Defense Committee v. Britt

132 F.R.D. 650 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 29, 1989

If plaintiffs’ contention qualifies as a good faith argument for reversal of existing law, then precedent means nothing, and we will have to relitigate forever settled concepts of law. … This claim has no basis Third, plaintiffs requested an injunction of the State criminal proceedings, which is clearly barred by federal abstention doctrine. Younger v.

Sherbrooke Corporate, Ltd v. Mayer

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

Judgment on the pleadings should be granted therefore only “where the moving party is clearly entitled to the judgment it seeks as a matter of law.” Mea- Trans Corp. v. Benton, 581 F. … establish (1) the existence of a trade secret, (2) the trade secret’s misappropriation, and (3) that the trade secret implicates interstate or foreign commerce.” dmarcian, Inc. v. dmarcian Eur.

First Protective Insurance Company v. Rike

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 13, 2025

In the meantime, in June 2023, the O’Leary defendants filed motions for judgment on the pleadings and for protective order, premised upon defendant O’Leary’s asserted immunity from suit and discovery, under the North Carolina … “The Act was clearly intended to benefit consumers, but its protections extend to businesses in appropriate contexts.” HAJMM Co. v. House of Raeford Farms, Inc., 328 N.C. 578, 592 (1991).

United States v. Allen

57 F. Supp. 3d 533 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Oct 28, 2014

conviction that is the subject of an expungement order under subsection (c), shall be retained by the Department of Justice solely for the purpose of use by the courts in determining in any subsequent proceeding whether a person qualifies … In Harris the defendant sought expungement of a misdemeanor conviction and the court clearly limited its holding to cases where there was an "absence of acquittal.” 847 F.Supp.2d at 835 .