Case law

LOOKABILL

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

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. … that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80.

Gobble v. International Paper Co.

207 F. Supp. 2d 423 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 22, 2002

As a result, the Court will only grant a motion for summary judgment for a moving party when “the entire record shows a right to judgment with such clarity as to leave no room for controversy” and the record clearly demonstrates … Plaintiffs argue that to make this determination, the Virginia courts follow the standard established in Shell Oil Co. v.

BAKER v. REGAN

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 10, 2024

“[I]f the actual date of receipt is [established], that date governs.” Id. … CONCLUSION The Complaint qualifies as untimely and the Amendment Motions qualify as futile.

RESPER v. BERRYHILL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 21, 2020

Following that hearing, the ALJ ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled. (Tr. 1030-53.) … [ALJ:] Now with respect to the manager of the bakery department at a Walmart, that’s clearly not sedentary, and it’s clearly not an eight SVP.

Abel v. CAROLINA STALITE CO., LTD. PARTNERSHIP

345 F. Supp. 2d 527 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 8, 2004

However, the evidence presented at trial clearly supported the conclusion that Mr. Abel's neck and back injuries were caused by the collision, and Defendants did not present any evidence to contest that Mr. … Plaintiffs argue that the award of $46,575.00 is substantially below what Plaintiffs contend their evidence established, even for just the neck and back injury alone.

Hirtenstein v. Cempra, Inc.

348 F. Supp. 3d 530 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 26, 2018

Pirate Inv'r LLC , 580 F.3d 233 , 243 (4th Cir. 2009) (holding that district court did not clearly err in finding plaintiffs established strong inference of scienter, where the court found individual defendant had actual … Consequently, there is no reckless conduct sufficient to establish a strong inference of scienter.

Driggers v. Sofamor, S.N.C.

44 F. Supp. 2d 760 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 29, 1999

Clearly, if it does migrate and even the presence of some migration at that time in 1992, suggests it should be removed so it does not migrate into a critical area. (Mitchell Report at 3.) … Even if the claim was not time-barred, it would be dismissed based on Driggers’ failure to establish causation. See Stanford v.

GRYDER

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 2, 2026

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 24-44.) … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established an error warranting remand.

International Designer Transitions, Inc. v. Faus Group, Inc.

663 F. Supp. 2d 432 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 6, 2009

See Myers & Chapman, 323 N.C. at 567-69 , 374 S.E.2d 385 (A jury verdict finding of conscious or reckless "ignorance of the truth” does not establish the element of scienter, but it may be relevant in establishing the element … In any event, even if the Court could infer that Faus somehow recklessly or consciously ignored the truth, thereby possibly establishing a misrepresentation, that alone does begin to carry IDT’s "heavy” burden of establishing

Reagin v. Terry

675 F. Supp. 297 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 4, 1986

It is well established in North Carolina that a store owner is ordinarily not liable for injuries to invitees which result from the intentional criminal acts of third persons. … In Huffman , the court ruled in favor of Gulf since the dealer’s activity was “clearly beyond” the scope of his apparent authority.

BUNTING

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 26, 2026

Schultz’s treatment records over time,® clearly acknowledging their treatment relationship. Dr. … In the present case, the ALJ clearly acknowledged Dr.

KING v. SAUL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 16, 2019

“In order to satisfy a listing and qualify for benefits, a person must meet all of the medical criteria in a particular listing.” … Thus, the AL] clearly applied Listing 12.04 paragraph B.

Surrey Investment Services, Inc. v. Smith

418 B.R. 140 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 16, 2009

Looney (In re Looney), 823 F.2d 788, 790 (4th Cir.1987) (finding bankruptcy court order “not a final order because it does not resolve the litigation, decide the merits, settle liability, establish damages, or determine the … Smith qualifies as such an “entity.” See 11 U.S.C. § 101 (15) (defining “entity” to include a “person”) & 101(41) (defining “person” to include an “individual”).

VANOVER v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 14, 2022

Respondent correctly contends that the Petition and Amended Petition qualify as untimely under subparagraph (A). … Petitioner’s attempts “to go back to court,” as well as that an unnamed individual with NCPLS told Petitioner that she could not “go back to court” (Docket Entry 5, ¶ 18 (emphasis added)),7 clearly

Dassault Falcon Jet Corp. v. Oberflex, Inc.

909 F. Supp. 345 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 15, 1995

The North Carolina courts have identified a number of acts which serve as a qualifying wrong or injustice when combined with excessive domination and control. … a contract for sale although the writings of the parties do not otherwise establish a contract.

SCHMITZ v. ALAMANCE-BURLINGTON BOARD OF EDUCATION

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 26, 2020

Under Section 12112(b)(4), “[t]he term ‘qualified individual’ . . . must simply mean qualified to do one’s job.” Larimer, 370 F.3d at 700. … Plaintiff’s beliefs about her right to an accommodation in the first place are contrary to clearly established law and policy.13 Further, Plaintiff’s basis for her first complaint to HR, her

VF Jeanswear Ltd. Partnership v. Molina

320 F. Supp. 2d 412 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 9, 2004

However, the fact that Molina was not financially secure does not establish that VF Jeanswear’s offer was wrongful or that Molina’s acceptance was coerced. See, e.g., Lundy v. … Notwithstanding the fact that the severance agreement explicitly limits Molina’s relocation benefits to those recoverable under the Relocation Policy, Molina does not qualify for some of the policies he cites.

ROCKRIVER v. SAUL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 3, 2020

The ALJ subsequently determined that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 15-29.) … That argument fails to establish an entitlement to relief for three reasons.

Harris v. McCrory

159 F. Supp. 3d 600 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 5, 2016

As Senator Rucho explained at the July 21, 2011, joint meeting of the Senate and House Redistricting Committees, those statements “clearly delineated” the “entire criteria” that were established and “what areas we were looking … This statement describes not only the new CD 1, as explained above, but clearly refers to multiple districts that are now majority minority.

FREEZE v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 1, 2022

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. … Plaintiff contends that the ALJ failed to include or consider qualifying statements regarding her activities.