Case law

Drum v. Scott

337 F. Supp. 588 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 3, 1972

CRAVEN, Circuit Judge: This is a class action brought against members of the North Carolina State Board of Elections and the Secretary of State of North Carolina to have N.C.G. … Were it not for Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, supra, and Wells v.

Moore v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

166 F. Supp. 215 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 7, 1958

Barron and Holtzoff on Federal Practice and Procedure, Volume 1, Section 367, and Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. … United States v.

Hewett v. City of King

29 F. Supp. 3d 584 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 8, 2014

(quoting Brown v. Gilmore, 258 F.3d 265 , 276 (4th Cir.2001)). … As Justice O’Connor stated in Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v.

Lassiter v. LabCorp Occupational Testing Services, Inc.

337 F. Supp. 2d 746 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 21, 2004

Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 149-50 , 104 S.Ct. 1723 , 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984) (stating that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dictate the filing of a complaint commences an action in federal court). But see Page v. … (citing Booker v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 879 F.2d 1304, 1312 (6th Cir.1989)).

GUHNE v. CERIDIAN HCM, INC.

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

Wilson v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 525 F.3d 370, 379 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co., 176 F.3d 776, 784 (4th Cir. 1999)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). … and that the Board always approved the awards as offered.”

LEAK v. DAVIDSON COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 5, 2024

Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty. v. … Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403 (1997) (“[The Supreme Court] ha[s] required a plaintiff seeking to impose liability on a [local governmental body] under § 1983 to identify a [local governmental] ‘

WALLS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 30, 2023

Hoftle v. … This inclusion of costs in setoff, as was ultimately upheld in Brown, was further discussed in a North Carolina Court of Appeals case, Boykin v. Kim, 620 S.E.2d 707 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005).

McCants v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n

201 F. Supp. 3d 732 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 12, 2016

Brown, 716 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir.2013). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. … Rocha v. Brown & Gould, LLP, 101 F.Supp.3d 52 , 87 n. 30 (D.D.C.2015) (listing cases); see, e.g., AIG Specialty Ins. Co v. Phoenician LLC, No. 2:13-2578 WBS CKD, 2014 WL 4795193 , *6 (E.D.Cal.

Cole v. Summey

329 F. Supp. 2d 591 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 3, 2004

Timmerman v. Brown, 528 F.2d 811, 813-14 (1975) (granting immunity to a South Carolina magistrate as to any claims for money damages in connection with the issuance and non-issuance of warrants). Here, Ms. … Carter v. Morris, 164 F.3d 215, 217 (4th Cir.1999)

Aventis Cropscience v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.

294 F. Supp. 2d 739 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 20, 2003

See Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., 188 F.3d 1362, 1380 (Fed.Cir.1999); A.B. Chance Co. v. RTE Corp., 854 F.2d 1307, 1312-13 (Fed.Cir.1988); Buildex Inc. v. … See Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 , 121 S.Ct. 1835 , 149 L.Ed.2d 855 (2001); Hensley v.

Darling v. Falls

236 F. Supp. 3d 914 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 17, 2017

Brown, 716 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 2013). Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate only when the complaint “lacks a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory.” … Capital Associated Indus., Inc. v. Cooper, 129 F.Supp.3d 281, 300 (M.D.N.C. 2015) (quoting Brown v. Target, Inc., No. ELH-14-00950, 2015 WL 2452617 , at *9 (D. Md. May 20, 2015)).

GOINES v. TITLEMAX OF VIRGINIA, INC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 27, 2021

See Brown & Pipkins, LLC v. SEIU, 846 F.3d 716, 729 n.2 (4th Cir. 2017). … Brown & Pipkins, LLC, 846 F.3d at 729 n.2. The Fourth Circuit has agreed that a confirmation proceeding “is intended to be summary.” Taylor v.

GOINES v. TITLEMAX OF VIRGINIA, INC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 27, 2021

See Brown & Pipkins, LLC v. SEIU, 846 F.3d 716, 729 n.2 (4th Cir. 2017). … Brown & Pipkins, LLC, 846 F.3d at 729 n.2. The Fourth Circuit has agreed that a confirmation proceeding “is intended to be summary.” Taylor v.

DALE v. BARNES

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 4, 2024

In her Declaration, Defendant Brown states that her name is Valdris Brown and “previously/now known as Valdris Jernigan.” (Docket Entry 25-4 at 1.) … See Brown v. Harris, 240 F.3d 383, 390-91 (4th Cir. 2001).

GOINES v. TITLEMAX OF VIRGINIA, INC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 27, 2021

See Brown & Pipkins, LLC v. SEIU, 846 F.3d 716, 729 n.2 (4th Cir. 2017). … Brown & Pipkins, LLC, 846 F.3d at 729 n.2. The Fourth Circuit has agreed that a confirmation proceeding “is intended to be summary.” Taylor v.

GOINES v. TITLEMAX OF VIRGINIA, INC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 27, 2021

See Brown & Pipkins, LLC v. SEIU, 846 F.3d 716, 729 n.2 (4th Cir. 2017). … Brown & Pipkins, LLC, 846 F.3d at 729 n.2. The Fourth Circuit has agreed that a confirmation proceeding “is intended to be summary.” Taylor v.

CLARK-PARKER v. ROWAN-SALISBURY SCHOOL SYSTEM

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

the School Board. … See, e.g., Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 374 (1983) (noting that 28 U.S.C.

Jennings v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

240 F. Supp. 2d 492 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 13, 2002

Cf., e.g., Huang v. Board of Governors of Univ. of North Carolina, 902 F.2d 1134, 1139 (4th Cir.1990) (finding that the State has not waived immunity as it applies to the state university system). … Board of Tr., 35 F.3d 265, 268 (7th Cir.1994) (discussing § 106.41(c)); Davis v.

Ameira Corp. v. Veneman

347 F. Supp. 2d 225 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 26, 2004

Morton v. … Howard v.

Smith v. Computer Task Group, Inc.

568 F. Supp. 2d 603 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 22, 2008

Lilly v. Mastec N. Am., Inc., 302 F.Supp.2d 471, 482 (M.D.N.C.2004); Martin v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 1:99CV00956, 2001 WL 604192 , **8-9, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9838 , at *24-25 (M.D.N.C. Apr.20, 2001); Brown v. … Although most courts calculate the temporal proximity in this case using the date of the termination decision (three months, or 90 days), Brown, 222 F.Supp.2d at 764 n. 10; Greene v.