Case law

Pashby v. Cansler

279 F.R.D. 347 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 8, 2011

See Brown v. Eckerd Drugs, Inc., 663 F.2d 1268, 1275 (4th Cir.1981). However, Plaintiffs must show that “[t]hat common contention ... … Mayer v. Wing, 922 F.Supp. 902, 909 (S.D.N.Y.1996); Crabtree v. Goetz, No. 3:08-0930, 2008 WL 5330506 at *30 (M.D.Tenn.

Swanson v. Carolina Fresh Water LLC

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

Ergashov v. Glob. Dynamic Transportation, LLC, 680 F. App’x 161, 162 (4th Cir. 2017) (unpublished); Armento v. Asheville Buncombe Cmty. … Darveau v. Detecon, Inc., 515 F.3d 334, 340 (4th Cir. 2008).

VOLT Power, LLC v. Butts

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 24, 2021

Medical Staffing Network, Inc. v. Ridgway, 194 N.C. App. 649, 658 (2009); see also Barr- Mullin, Inc. v. Browning, 108 N.C. … Springs v. Mayer Brown, LLP, No. 3:09CV352, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9734, at *25 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 27, 2012).

Rosales v. Amedisys, Inc.

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 10, 2024

Carter v. Halliburton Co., 710 F.3d 171, 181 (4th Cir. 2013), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Carter, 575 U.S. 650 (2015); see United States ex rel. … Crocano v. Trividia Health Inc., 615 F. Supp. 3d 1296, 1314 (S.D. Fla. 2022); United States ex rel. Brown v. BankUnited Tr. 2005-1, 235 F. Supp. 3d 1343, 1362 (S.D. Fla. 2017).

Stross v. Tiny House Listings LLC

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · May 4, 2022

See Interior Distribs., Inc. v. Hartland Constr. Co., 116 N.C. App. 627, 631, 449 S.E.2d 193, 195 (1994) (discussing another version of the statute). … Coble v.'Brown, 1 N.C. App. 1, 6, 159 S.E.2d 259, 263 (1968); see also Smith v. Jones, 183 N.C. App. 643, 646, 645 S.E.2d 198, 201 (2009). Strictly construing N.C. Gen.

Beach Mart, Inc. v. L&L Wings, Inc.

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 26, 2021

See Brown v. Flowe, 349 N.C. 520, 523 (1998) (emphasis in original) (“There is no indication in [N.C. Gen. … See Flowe, 349 N.C. at 523 (“The jury found $250,000 to be damages . . . the estate of Mary Louise Brown, Vickie Brown, Administratrix, was entitled to recover by reason of the injury to and death of Mary Louise Brown.

Hansley v. Bowen

708 F. Supp. 724 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 23, 1989

Thom *726 as v. Celebrezze, 331 F.2d 541 (4th Cir. 1964); Tyler v. Weinberger, 409 F.Supp. 776 (E.D.Va.1976). … Hidalgo v. Brown, 822 F.2d 294 (2d Cir.1987).

United Paperworkers International Union Local 425 v. Champion International Corp.

990 F. Supp. 423 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 15, 1998

Defendant Champion International Corporation (“Champion”) operates a mill in Roanoke *425 Rapids, North Carolina, producing paper, liner board, and other products. … Hickey v. Digital Equipment Corp., 43 F.3d 941, 945 (4th Cir.1995).

Oppenheimer v. Lee

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 17, 2024

Elkins v. Broome, 213 F.R.D. 273, 275 (M.D.N.C. 2003). … Patterson v. Brown, No. 3:06cv476, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9312, at *22-23 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 23, 2008) (citation omitted). Mr.

Rios v. City of Raleigh

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 18, 2020

See, e.g., Brown v. Bratton, No. CV ELH-19-1450, 2020 WL 886142, at *18 (D. Md. … Brown v. Goodwill Indus. of E. N. Carolina, Inc., 361 F. Supp. 3d 558, 562 (E.D.N.C. 2019) (citations omitted). 1.

Whitaker v. Dunbar

83 F. Supp. 3d 663 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 2, 2014

See Zinkand v. Brown, 478 F.3d 634, 637 (4th Cir.2007); Bogart v. Chapell, 396 F.3d 548, 555 (4th Cir.2005); Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 708 (4th Cir.2002); Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. N.at’l Fire Ins. … Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir.1998); Hughes v. Bedsole, 48 F.3d 1376, 1382 (4th Cir.1995); Collison v. Int’l Chem. Workers Union, 34 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir.1994); Hutchinson v.

Boley v. Principi

144 F.R.D. 305 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 10, 1992

See United States v. … Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank and Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652, 657 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950); Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791, 798 , 103 S.Ct. 2706, 2711 , 77 L.Ed.2d 180 (1983).

United States v. Craft

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 22, 2021

The company had no board of directors. See Craft Dep. [D.E. 22-5] 5. Microcraft“developedautomated — test equipment for printed circuit board manufacturers.” Id. at 4. … Microcraft’s equipment enabled circuit board manufacturers to test the operability of their circuit boards before shipping them. See id. At one point, Microcraft also designed circuit boards. See id. at 9.

United States v. Tall

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 18, 2021

See Anderson v. … See e.g., United States v.

Williams v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts

364 F. Supp. 3d 596 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 4, 2018

See Hentosh v. … Welcome Ctr. v. Brown , 466 U.S. 147 , 148 n. 1, 104 S.Ct. 1723 , 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984) (per curiam); Dixon v. Dig. Equip.

Cousin-Sabra

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 15, 2026

Wilson v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 525 F.3d 370, 379 (4th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation and citation omitted). … A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22, 32 (2025); see also Hinson v. Norwest Fin. S.C., Inc., 239 F.3d 611, 617 (4th Cir. 2001); 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Gerald v. Shipt

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 3, 2025

Brown v. Fam. Dollar Stores of N.C., Inc., No. 1:21-CV-977, 2022 WL 3576972, at *2 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 19, 2022) (quoting Charlotte Motor Speedway, LLC v. Cnty. of Cabarrus, 748 S.E.2d 171, 176 (N.C. Ct. … Sys., Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 501 U.S. 190, 208 & n.3 (1991) (citing West Virginia ex rel. Ranger Fuel Corp. v.

Bullock v. Saul

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 23, 2019

§ 404.1545(a)(1); see also S.S.R. 96-8p, 1996 WL 374184, at *1 (July 2, 1996); see Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. … § 423(d)(2)(B); see Hines v.

The John L. Lawrence

231 F. 507 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 16, 1916

V. … V.

Herring v. Cloud Based

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 21, 2020

MEDICAL ) BOARD, ) ) Defendants. … A district court is required to review de novo those portions of an M&R to which a party timely files specific objections or where there is plain error. 28 U .S.C. § 636(b) (1 ); Thomas v.