Case law

WALL v. GULLEDGE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 16, 2023

Smith argues that Plaintiff’s federal claims against her are barred by judicial immunity, the state claims are barred by sovereign immunity and judicial immunity, and Plaintiff fails to … Here, North Carolina law on sovereign immunity and judicial immunity for magistrate judges is currently unsettled. In Wynn, 278 N.C.

MIDGETT v. COOPER

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 26, 2021

immunity; and the deliberate indifference claims fail because Shannon was voluntarily employed. … Because Plaintiffs have failed to establish standing under Section 1983, the court need not address the Individual Defendants’ remaining 12(b)(1), (2), (4), (5), and (6) arguments.

GIRARDEAU v. NORTH CAROLINA AGRICULTURAL & TECHNICAL STATE UNIVERSITY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 11, 2025

In its memorandum, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s state law claim for “wrongful termination in violation of public policy” is barred by sovereign immunity. (Id. at 5–8.) … Rather, a plaintiff must show only that she was qualified for the job and that she was meeting her employer’s legitimate expectations.” Cowgill v.

AM PROPERTIES v. Town of Chapel Hill

202 F. Supp. 2d 451 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 7, 2002

Falstaff Brewing Corp., 605 F.Supp. 421, 439 (E.D.Mo.1984) (holding that Federal Express costs, telephone expenses, and postage expenses did not qualify as taxable costs); El-Fadl v. … The Court notes that Plaintiffs do not clearly indicate that they challenge Defendant’s request of $1,459.95 for costs.

Southeast Milk Sales Ass'n v. Swaringen

290 F. Supp. 292 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 16, 1968

Certainly, as to the producers, their rights rest upon the same rules, and clearly meet the test of equal protection. … To hotels, restaurants, stores or other establishments for consumption on the premises, 2. To stores or other establishments for resale, or 3. To consumers; c.

Griggs v. Duke Power Company

292 F. Supp. 243 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 1968

This would be to deny the defendant the right to establish different standards for different types of employment. … The legislative history of the Act clearly shows that it is prospective and not retroactive in effect.

POLK v. ALDRIDGE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 10, 2023

immunity in their individual capacities. … Nov. 7, 2008) (unpublished) (“A court need not address a claim for qualified immunity unless the underlying constitutional claim is first established.”). 11 the allegations in the Complaint

LUFFMAN

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 2026

The defendants have not clearly identified any claim as to which Ms. Luffman has not exhausted her administrative remedies. … asserts that the Board violated her rights under the North Carolina constitution, Doc. 17 at ¶¶ 264–69, pleading this claim in the alternative should “state law remedies prove to be inadequate by operation of governmental immunity

Giovani Carandola, Ltd. v. Fox

396 F. Supp. 2d 630 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 26, 2005

Thus, the statute is clearly within the constitutional power of North Carolina. B. … McCleary testified that by adding the qualifiers Dr. Linz cited, the authors were not repudiating their findings but merely qualifying them which he testified is a common rhetorical tool used by social scientists. Dr.

DONALDSON v. BAKER

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 24, 2021

immunity.” … Because, as discussed below, Defendant prevails on her excessive force contention, the Court need not address qualified immunity. 14 excessive

Worster v. United States Postal Service

132 F. Supp. 2d 397 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 21, 2001

Plaintiffs exhibits include notes about several individuals whose violations clearly are not similar to Plaintiffs death threats. … Any harassment that Worster suffered clearly was based on her anti-union beliefs, not her gender.

North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory

997 F. Supp. 2d 322 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 8, 2014

Louis for refusing to allow their qualified volunteers to serve as deputy registration officials. … as prescribed in this Chapter, be qualified to vote in the precinct in which the person resides.”

North Carolina Ass'n for Retarded Children v. North Carolina

420 F. Supp. 451 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 1, 1976

The statute expressly provides that sterilization operations shall only be performed by qualified, licensed North Carolina physicians and then only pursuant to an order issued by an appropriate state court. … But the North Carolina Supreme Court, in In re Sterilization of Moore, 289 N.C. 95 , 221 S.E.2d 307 (1976), announced that “in keeping with the intent of the General Assembly, clearly expressed throughout the article, that

Parker Pen Co. v. Dart Drug Co.

202 F. Supp. 646 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 8, 1962

The agreed statement of facts indicates that plaintiff has qualified under *647 the North Carolina Fair Trade Act and has established minimum prices for the resale of its products. … We think that until the cases cited above are overruled they remain the law and are clearly controlling on this court. Defendant advances an alternative ground for denying the injunction requested by plaintiff.

NAACP-Greensboro Branch v. Guilford County Board of Elections

858 F. Supp. 2d 516 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 14, 2012

Thus, while one subsection clearly provides for a nine-member Board beginning in December 2012, the subsequent section only provides for the election of commissioners from four of the new single-member districts. … The North Carolina Constitution disqualifies from elected office “any person who is not qualified to vote in an election for that office.” N.C. Const. Art. VI, § 8.

REYNOLDS v. KIJAKAZI

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

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 9-31.) … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established grounds for relief.

Andrew v. United States

91 F. Supp. 3d 739 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 12, 2015

Many non-plaintiff shareholders were clearly not motivated by receiving this larger amount, as they gave their shares away. … By contrast, it is well-established that in a general refund suit, the plaintiff-taxpayer bears the burden of proving overpayment. See 26 U.S.C. § 7422 ; see also Bull v.

CARMONA v. UNION COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 20, 2021

In its frivolity review, a court must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional … The Plaintiff also attempts to state a claim against Jane Doe, who is identified as an Albemarle CI classification officer, for false imprisonment.2 In an action arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, venue is established by

Wall v. Stanly County Board of Education

259 F. Supp. 238 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 16, 1966

Innumerable cases have clearly established the principle that under circumstances such as this where a history of racial discrimination exists, the burden of proof has been thrown upon the party having the power to produce … It establishes the most meticulous standards and procedures for rating and evaluating the teachers in the System.

United States v. Duke Energy Corporation

278 F. Supp. 2d 619 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 26, 2003

Accordingly, applying its multi-factored test, the EPA could have determined that the project did not qualify as RMRR. … This alone is not sufficient to establish RMRR.