Case law

ASILONU v. ASILONU

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 22, 2021

The federal law underlying the I-864 Affidavit clearly specifies the instances in which the support obligation can be avoided. 8 U.S.C. § 1183a(a)(2)-(3). … Sunday Okeiyi is clearly named under the heading for the fourth cause of action. He also appears to be the injured party in the twelfth cause of action. But, Dr.

BRIGHT v. SAUL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 4, 2020

Alesii and Messer is also supported by these prior administrative medical findings, rendered by highly qualified experts in Social Security disability evaluation. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1513a(b)(1) (2017). … The ALJ also clearly considered the record underlying the VA’s disability rating. The VA included a list of the evidence it relied upon as part of its decision. (Tr. 292-293.)

CARPET SUPER MART, INC. v. BENCHMARK INTERNATIONAL COMPANY SALES SPECIALIST, LLC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 5, 2020

Courts should not follow the law-of-the-case doctrine if a previous decision was clearly erroneous and following it “would work a manifest injustice.” … It is Defendants burden to establish the propriety of their fee request. Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. LOFLIN FABRICATIONS, LLC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 22, 2020

Title I of the ADA prohibits employers from “discriminat[ing] against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to . . . … , (2) that she is a qualified individual for the employment in question, and (3) that she was discharged because of her disability.

ALI v. HOOKS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 29, 2020

More specifically, the Court may not grant relief unless a state court decision on the merits “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, … To qualify as “contrary to” United States Supreme Court precedent, a state court decision either must arrive at “a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the United States Supreme]

RATCLIFF v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO. INC.

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 27, 2019

Fortunately, it almost always 10 is capable of defending itself against them and remains healthy until, in a few cases, the immune system fails and disease occuts. … jury could find that the progression of her peritoneal mesothelioma from one sub-type to another represented a separate and distinct disease. 18 peritoneal mesothelioma was fully established

MORRISON v. AQ TEXTILES LLC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 27, 2022

Such a dismissal is not a final order “unless the grounds for dismissal clearly indicate that ‘no amendment [in the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case.’” … “Where, as here, a case is at the pleading stage, [Plaintiffs] must ‘clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating’ each element.” Spokeo, 578 U.S. at 338 (quoting Warth v.

ELSAYED v. FAMILY FARE LLC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 18, 2020

Furthermore, at least one court has found that a franchisee herself can qualify as an employee of a franchisor. Fernandez v. JaniKing Int’l, Inc., No. H-17-1401, 2018 WL 539364, at *3 (S.D. Tex. … A plaintiff’s request to amend a complaint is futile if the amended complaint clearly could not satisfy the appropriate requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

WALL RECYCLING, LLC v. 3TEK GLOBAL, LLC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 1, 2022

establish a contract.”). … The document clearly contemplates the execution of a Sales Contract.

RICHARDSON v. TAYLOR

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 6, 2022

The movant bears the burden of establishing the absence of such dispute. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). … It does not “abrogate the proper summary judgment analysis, which in qualified immunity cases ‘usually means adopting . . . the plaintiff’s version of the facts.’” Witt v.

WELLS v. LYNCH

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 8, 2025

For each of the three claims, Plaintiff alleges that that as a direct and proximate result of the tort alleged, “Matthew has been damaged in an amount to be established at trial.” (Id. ¶¶ 205, 217, 227.) Mr. … Here, the plain text of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 clearly confers the Court original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ federal-law claims against the Board brought pursuant to the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, and for the following

GLASTON CORPORATION v. HHH EQUIPMENT RESOURCES

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 18, 2024

The claims of a patent define the invention itself, establishing the metes and bounds of what is protected by law. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. … and master’s degree in mechanical engineering and nearly 40 years’ experience in the glass tempering industry (Doc. 40-12 at 4,5), and whom Plaintiffs do not appear to challenge is qualified to

TRIANGLE GRADING & PAVING, INC. v. RHINO SERVICES, LLC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 30, 2020

Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 284 (2014); Universal Leather, 773 F.3d at 559 (“[Specific jurisdiction] may be established if the defendant’s qualifying contacts with the forum state also constitute … The last two factors support jurisdiction in both North Carolina and Georgia, and therefore do not clearly advocate either way.

COVIL CORPORATION v. USF&G COMPANY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 4, 2020

Clearly, the existence of such a proceeding should be a significant factor in the district court’s determination. But it is not dispositive. … Under the terms of that settlement, approved by the court in South Carolina, Hartford paid a substantial sum of money to establish a Qualified Settlement Fund by “buying back” the insurance contracts it issued to Covil.

BELL v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES INC.

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 6, 2020

(Doc. 98) at 10) acknowledge that North Carolina law defers to “Delaware substantive law to decide whether the party is properly qualified as an ‘agent’ to receive … Neslemur is a dissolved corporation, and its former registered agents no longer have a valid agency relationship with the corporation – searching for these agents to accept service would clearly

THE TRUSTEES OF PURDUE UNIVERSITY v. WOLFSPEED, INC.

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 7, 2023

“[A] patentee is free to be his own lexicographer[, but] . . . any special definition given to a word must be clearly defined in the specification.” … Specifically, Defendant argues that the express language of the claim term uses “first” and “second” as qualifiers for the “source electrodes,” such that each source electrode must be a separate

MR. DEE'S INC.,et al v. INMAR, INC.

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 4, 2020

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum supporting the Emergency Motion points to the deposition of Defendants’ corporate designee, Dawn Grubbs, to establish that Defendants withheld coupon processing … to the ACPTD Request would qualify as “unduly burdensome and expensive” (id.}), both rest on interconnected “reasons,” Fed. R. Civ.

ALLEN v. CITY OF GRAHAM, NC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 21, 2021

ndividual Plaintiffs [] and [two o]rganizational Plaintiffs[’ ] members in an attempt to prevent and discourage them from exercising their right to vote.”), 164 (“Defendants’ actions violated Plaintiffs’ clearly … established rights, of which a reasonable person would have known.”), 165 (“As a result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries entitling them to damages . . . .”), 168

NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. v. STRICKLAND'S AUTO & TRUCK REPAIRS, INC.

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

Cir. 591 (2001) (“If a contract involves both goods and services, it qualifies as a UCC contract only if its ‘predominant thrust’ is the purchase of goods ‘with labor incidentally involved.’ ”); Genito Glenn, L.P. v. … And even if the first exception were not applicable here, the second exception is more clearly evident.

STEPHENSON v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 13, 2020

Stephenson’s construction of the representations conflicts with the IPL to the extent the IPL clearly states IBM’s discretion to alter or amend the Plan or commissions. … In them, the defendant either retained total discretion not to pay commissions, or correctly determined that the plaintiff had failed to qualify for commission payments. See, e.g., McCabe, 47 F.