Case law

Ivester v. Miller

398 B.R. 408 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 4, 2008

Bank Accounts The North Carolina attachment statutory scheme clearly contemplates that a creditor may acquire an attachment lien in intangible property, such as bank accounts. 12 For example, section 1-440.4 provides that … The bankruptcy court therefore did not err in finding that the Ivesters fail to qualify for mandatory stay relief as to the real property. 2.

WADE v. ALAMANCE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 8, 2020

As discussed below, see infra Section II.C, Plaintiff’s Complaint is unlikely to survive other Rule 12 challenges, Defendant GAL is not clearly identified by the summons, and Plaintiff … Plaintiff’s Complaint appears to suffer from statute of limitation and immunity issues. See N.C. Gen.

HEGE v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 23, 2022

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established an error warranting relief.

HUNTLEY v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 9, 2021

In this case, the record does not clearly establish the pain was a symptom of a medi[c]ally determinable impairment of the lower back that significantly limits [ … If “the record d[id] not clearly establish [that Plaintiff’s lower back pain] was a symptom of a medi[c]ally determinable impairment” (Tr. 29), that finding should have ended the ALJ’s analysis

National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. City of Thomasville

401 F. Supp. 2d 489 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 23, 2005

One of the wards established pursuant to the 1987 judgment, Ward 3, was drawn to have a majority of black voters. 7. … The judgment also provided that two additional mehibers of the City Council were to be nominated and elected at-large by all the qualified voters of the City, making a total of seven Council members.

ALLEN v. MANPOWER INC.

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

In other words, the Complaint lacks factual matter establishing state action. … -10- CONCLUSION In sum, Defendants do not qualify

JEFFREYS v. CITY OF GREENSBORO

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 23, 2019

Standing Under Title II When a plaintiff moves for summary judgment, to establish Article III standing, that plaintiff must establish that there is no genuine issue of material … Thus, the Court concludes that a reasonable fact-finder could find it “clearly evident” that Defendant provided equivalent access to the Coliseum Arena.

ERSKINE v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 24, 2022

Second, the Commissioner maintains that “Plaintiff simply cannot establish good cause for her failure to submit [the Sater Opinions] earlier,” because she “has not established (or even … In light of that definition, which does not depend on the “availability” of the evidence, the Sater Opinions, created on May 22, 2020 (see Tr. 29) and June 2, 2020 (see Tr. 34), clearly qualify

AIKENS v. HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL OF AMERICA, INC.

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 24, 2025

(Doc. 34-17) at 2), and thus clearly received that email during discovery, this court construes Defendant’s Motion to Strike to refer to the Peele email found at Doc. 39-7, page five. … Although Plaintiff stated that “both employees were qualified,” (Def.’s Ex. A, Aikens Dep.

SCHMIERER V. SAUL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 4, 2019

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 16-32). … (see Docket Entry 24 at 22-23), the 2018 Letter Opinion qualifies neither as new nor material.

FERREBEE v. SAUL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 5, 2021

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 12-25.) … Thus, the ALJ clearly did consider the “adverse impact” that Plaintiff’s obesity had upon her “co-existing impairments.” (Id.)

SOLOMON v. SAUL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 28, 2021

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 99-114.) … Given the ALJ’s exertional RFC findings, he clearly found that, regardless of whether the occupations in question qualified as light because they involved the lifting requirements of light

Mercer v. Duke University

301 F. Supp. 2d 454 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 22, 2004

It clearly does not. Rather, the case was about whether a female athlete may be subjected to gender discrimination once a college institution allows her to participate on a men’s contact-sports team. … According to Neuheisel, “If a girl is qualified, and she can go out there and enjoy, then why not?” Id.

TOWNSEND v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 12, 2023

Moreover, the VE testified that 220,000 housekeeping cleaner jobs and 12,000 napkin band wrapper jobs existed in the national economy (see Tr. 105-06), numbers that clearly qualify as significant … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established an errors warranting remand.

SCALES v. BISIGNANO

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

The Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI), established by Title XVI of the Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq., provides benefits to indigent disabled persons. … These circumstances clearly requite remand.

BLEWITT v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 19, 2022

However, the regulations clearly provide that a medically determinable impairment: must tesult from anatomical, physiological, or psychological abnormalities that can be shown by medically acceptable clinical and … ‘Therefore, a physical or mental impairment must be established by objective medical evidence from an acceptable medical source.

TEASLEY v. O'BRIEN

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 23, 2024

When “a case is at the pleading stage, the plaintiff must clearly 1 Ms. … The Court dismissed the lawsuit because the judge had judicial immunity and the plaintiff did not allege any facts to negate his immunity. Hudson, No. 21-CV-265, Doc. 13 (M.D.N.C. July 7, 2021).

WATSON v. HARMON

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 17, 2022

As part of this review, the Court may anticipate affirmative defenses that clearly appear on the face of the complaint. Nasim v. Warden, Md. House of Corr., 64 F.3d 951, 954 (4th Cir. 1995) (en banc); Todd v. … Stat § 1-52 (establishing three-year statute of limitations for personal injury).

FIERRO

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 21, 2025

Contending that their claims qualify as timely, Plaintiffs opposed the Motion. … Nevertheless, dismissal remains “appropriate when the face of the complaint clearly reveals the existence of a meritorious affirmative defense.” Brooks v.

POWELL v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 26, 2025

She answered questions clearly. She had good concentration and memory (Exhibit 11F). … Gay advised Plaintiff that she did not have signs of active lupus and that lupus was unlikely to qualify her for disability. (Tr. at 18.)