Case law

MARSHALL v. GREENSBORO POLICE SGT. RYAN 4TH PRECINCT

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 19, 2020

To the extent that there could be a constitutional violation, Defendants Ryan and Underhill argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … Therefore, summary judgment would also be appropriate based on qualified immunity.

Rhone-Poulenc Agro, S.A. v. Monsanto Co.

445 F. Supp. 2d 531 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 7, 2006

Thus, the specification itself ascribes a meaning to the term “resistance” much broader than total resistance or immunity. … Here, DeKalb has failed to establish any of the elements of the Aukerman test.

Blair v. Young Phillips Corp.

235 F. Supp. 2d 465 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 30, 2002

Plaintiff can establish his prima facie case upon proof of the following elements: (1) that he is a member of the protected class, i.e., a participant in an employee benefit plan; (2) that he was qualified for the job; and … He was qualified for the position of COO and was reasonably performing his job.

Holtz v. Jefferson Smurfit Corp.

408 F. Supp. 2d 193 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 4, 2006

The first through third reasons are clearly Plaintiff alleging he met Defendant’s legitimate expectations because he has a past record of favorable employment. … Under that scheme, Plaintiff must show that he was in the protected class (within the group qualified for the ERISA plan), was qualified for his position, and was fired under circumstances that give rise to an inference of

Horton v. Orange County Board of Education

342 F. Supp. 1244 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 2, 1971

It is clearly established in this Circuit that there is no vested right to public employment so long as the termination of a contract is “not in retribution for an exercise of some constitutionally protected right.” … Miss Horton’s testimony clearly established that she brought a can of Right Guard deodorant to class and made it available to all students who desired to use it.

ALLEN v. AULD

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 2, 2021

The third ground for dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) generally applies to situations in which doctrines established by the United States Constitution or at common law immunize governments and/or government … § 1983 and common-law immunity doctrines, such as judicial, legislative, and prosecutorial immunity).

MCCLARY v. SHUMAN

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 14, 2021

The Eleventh Amendment prohibits actions in federal court by individuals against a state 5 Briefly noted in their conclusion, Defendants state that they are protected by the doctrine of qualified immunity. … Mar. 31, 2015) (finding that “the absence of evidence supporting a finding that a constitutional violation occurred satisfies the first prong of the qualified immunity analysis”), report and recommendation adopted, No.

Burton v. Potter

339 F. Supp. 2d 706 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 4, 2004

“To accomplish this, the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, the reasons for the *712 plaintiffs [removal].” Id. … Even if he were disabled, Plaintiff is not a “qualified individual with a disability” to which the protections of the Rehabilitation Act apply.

Cathey v. Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center

90 F. Supp. 3d 493 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 12, 2015

The moving party bears the burden of establishing that no genuine dispute of material fact remains. … To establish a prima facie case against an employer for failure to accommodate a disability under the ADA, an employee must establish four elements: (1) the employee was a qualified individual with a disability within the

McRae v. Rogosin Converters, Inc.

301 F. Supp. 2d 471 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 27, 2004

Although Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state clearly the factual and legal bases for their claim, Plaintiffs contend that when Kordsa purchased Rogosin Converters’ manufacturing facility and established its own retirement … However, Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to establish whether or how Plaintiffs pursued any administrative remedies under Section 9.10 of the Pension Plan of Rogosin Converters.

Wilson v. Aetna Life Insurance

497 F. Supp. 2d 710 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 16, 2007

In this action, Plaintiff seeks insurance benefits pursuant to an employee welfare benefit plan (the “Plan”) established by Freightliner, LLC (“Freightliner”). … To allow such a cause of action would be a vast expansion of liability under ERISA, an expansion which clearly could jeopardize the financial integrity of the Plan and/or the insurer. See Coleman v. Nationwide Life Ins.

Coyne Beahm, Inc. v. United States Food & Drug Administration

958 F. Supp. 1060 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 25, 1997

This statement is not unambiguous, and, moreover, does not clearly support Plaintiffs’ position. The first sentence is consistent with FDA’s position that the use of the product can establish intended use. … The court finds that § 352(r) clearly authorizes FDA to require restricted devices to bear the product’s established name and a statement of intended use.

N.C. Democratic Party v. Berger

306 F. Supp. 3d 803 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 31, 2018

The defendants do not contend that the Executive Director of the State Board is not a proper party, nor do they contend that she is immune from suit. … In 1996, nonpartisan elections were established for superior court judges.

McClean v. Duke Univ.

376 F. Supp. 3d 585 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 25, 2019

These decisions arise mainly in the sovereign immunity context, where the origin of the statute becomes relevant to determine whether Congress has abrogated Eleventh Amendment state sovereign immunity. … Congress can do this either by acting within its Equal Protection power or by forcing states to waive immunity to receive funds.

Recording Industry Ass'n of America v. University of North Carolina

367 F. Supp. 2d 945 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 14, 2005

The DMCA safe harbors do not render a service provider immune from copyright infringement. See Ellison, 357 F.3d at 1077 . … The Does say this clearly shows that Congress did not intend to allow the subpoenaing of Section 512(a) service providers.

DAVIS v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT GREENSBORO

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 22, 2022

To establish good cause for a service extension, a plaintiff must show diligence. Gelin v. … These two instances sufficiently establish actual knowledge on the part of RSNA.

Fuller v. Scott

328 F. Supp. 842 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 21, 1971

There, the Statute being questioned was narrowly drawn, clearly worded, and precise in meaning. … They are, however, subject to attack as prohibiting conduct that by the First and Fourteenth Amendments is immune from regulation.

Karpark Corp. v. Town of Graham

99 F. Supp. 124 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 30, 1951

All the individual defendants were duly elected by the voters of said town and subsequently qualified for such offices and are acting in such capacity. … Each of such meters shall be so arranged so as to show or display a signal, which shall clearly indicate whether the time limit during which parking in that space is permitted has expired. 4.

Laughter v. Aventis Pasteur, Inc.

291 F. Supp. 2d 406 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 12, 2003

Over the years, the Defendants continued to sell, market and distribute Thimerosal-containing vaccines without any apparent regard to the cumulative effect on the children who received numerous childhood immunization vaccinations … The Act clearly states that it “applies only to a person who has sustained a vaccine-related injury or death and who is qualified to file a petition for compensation under the Program.” 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-11(a)(9).

GREEN v. JOHNSON

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 12, 2024

The defendants also contend they are entitled to qualified immunity on the wrongful arrest claim because there was probable cause to arrest, which is essentially the same argument. … Alston contends he is entitled to qualified immunity because the facts alleged show that Mr. Green was resisting arrest.