Case law

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.

Pugh v. AIG Life Insurance

55 F. Supp. 2d 366 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 16, 1998

Thus, Plaintiff fails to establish any sufficient causal link between the purported October 1994 accident and her disabling illness. … was directly and independently caused by a qualifying accident.

Strickland v. Jewell

562 F. Supp. 2d 661 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 15, 2007

Thus, Plaintiff cannot establish that he was assaulted. … Therefore, the Court will only assume, for the sake of argument, that the alleged touching incident qualifies as outrageous conduct.

Jones v. Penny

387 F. Supp. 383 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 23, 1974

Baxstrom and its progeny 25 are clearly distinguishable. … Whether North Carolina’s policy of encouragement of voluntary admission would qualify as a “nonprimary” purpose of § 20-17.1 under Royster need not be decided. 27 . See note 8 supra for full text. 28 .

SINGH v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 12, 2022

The plaintiff bears the burden “to establish an ongoing violation of federal law to qualify for relief under Ex parte Young.” Id. at 355. … See Allen, 895 F.3d at 355 (reasoning that it was the plaintiffs’ burden to establish an ongoing violation of federal law to qualify for relief under Ex parte Young, and because

Bryson v. Northlake Hilton

407 F. Supp. 73 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 22, 1976

The plaintiffs allege that from July 3, 1974, through July 6, 1974, they were guests of Northlake in Tucker, Georgia, and that, while guests of the defendant-establishment, they were each bitten by numerous flea-like insects … does not have and has never had any agent or agents transacting business in the State of North Carolina; that Northlake itself has no agents in the State of North Carolina; that the limited partnership is not licensed, qualified

McNeill v. Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina-Constituent N.C. A & T State University

837 F. Supp. 2d 540 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 14, 2011

Burlington clearly changed the standard against which evidence is to be evaluated in this area. Lettieri, 478 F.3d at 650 n. 2. … Burlington, 548 *547 U.S. at 68 , 126 S.Ct. 2405 (“[a]n employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that

Keeler Brass Co. v. Continental Brass Co.

678 F. Supp. 1185 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 17, 1987

The effect of the certificate is to shift the burden of production on the constituent elements of owner *1188 ship to defendants, not to conclusively establish them. B. … Krofft clearly recognized the axiom that copyright protection does not extend to an idea but only to a particular expression of an idea. Id. at 1163.

Johnson v. Wall

219 F. Supp. 4 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 2, 1963

since the action seeks to restrain and control him in the performance of his official duties as an agent of the United States of America, with respect to a matter in which the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity … An examination of the authorities subsequent to the Miller case clearly demonstrate that personal hardship does not constitute such “special and extraordinary circumstances” as to allow the issuance of an injunction.

Warren v. Halstead Industries, Inc.

613 F. Supp. 499 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 26, 1985

When an opening occurred, the employee with the most departmental seniority was promoted unless he was not qualified or did not want the position. … While his EEOC charge was filed shortly before his discharge, neither Title YII nor 42 U.S.C. § 1981 requires an employer to immunize protected class members who have filed charges of discrimination from discharge despite

WOODBERRY v. MICHAEL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 7, 2024

Stat § 1-52 (establishing three-year statute of limitations for personal injury). … If Plaintiff can state viable claims for relief, he must do so and he must clearly set out the facts supporting those claims.

Bittle v. Electrical Railway Improvement Co.

576 F. Supp. 2d 744 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 16, 2008

He only clearly satisfies the first element of his prima facie case because, as an African-American, he is a member of a protected class. (Doc. 1 ¶ 5); Love-Lane, 355 F.3d at 787 . … Bittle fails to show that he was qualified for the position of process control group leader.

American Woodworking MacHinery & Equipment Show, Inc. v. United States

249 F. Supp. 392 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 20, 1966

Under these circumstances, the plaintiff clearly qualifies as a business league under the statute and regulation, unless its activities inure to the benefit of its participating members in a way other than through dividends … Finding that the record as a whole clearly establishes plaintiff’s primary purpose and activity is to improve and aid the woodworking machinery industry, and that any earnings or benefits inuring to exhibitors at its trade

CAMPBELL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 22, 2026

Qualified immunity would were insufficient does not sufficiently apply. allege deliberate indifference. … Va. 2025) right was ‘clearly established’ at the (quoting Morrison v.

CARTER v. MNUCHIN

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 29, 2019

The Eleventh Amendment prohibits actions in federal court by individuals against a state unless either the state has waived immunity or Congress has abrogated immunity. … Nowhere in his complaint does Carter allege a waiver of immunity by the State or an abrogation of immunity by Congress.

The IN PORTERS, SA v. Hanes Printables, Inc.

663 F. Supp. 494 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 11, 1987

The Export Act, however, requires an actual injury to plaintiff within the United States — a requirement plaintiff clearly has not satisfied. … The Export Act, as a proviso to the Sherman Act, requires a qualifying effect (i.e., on United States export trade) on a qualifying party (i.e., an exporter from the United States).

FISCUS v. CITY OF GREENSBORO, NORTH CAROLINA

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 14, 2020

In order to establish that one has a cognizable property interest, “a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire” for a benefit and more than a “unilateral expectation.” Bd. of Regents of St. … Plaintiff also provides detailed annual evaluations intended to show that Plaintiff’s work was clearly superior to the two officers he references.

Tatum v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

247 F.R.D. 488 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 15, 2008

An existing threat of litigation, however, is not sufficient to establish that the documents at issue were created in anticipation of litigation. … As such, the documents are “absolutely immune” from production. Id.

McLaughlin v. North Carolina Board of Elections

850 F. Supp. 373 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 19, 1994

If there were any doubt previously, the dual combination of the signature verification fee and the notarization requirement clearly, unduly burdens minor party resources and violates equal protection. … The errors clearly did not freeze the plaintiffs out of the political process.

WRETMAN v. THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SYSTEM

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 30, 2025

argue that they are protected by qualified immunity.12 (Id. at 19–21.) This court agrees. … damages under § 1983, insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”