Case law

WILLIAM FULP WRECKER SERVICE, INC. v. MILLER TRANSFER AND RIGGING CO.

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 2, 2024

Notably, because the burden of establishing an affirmative defense, such as a release agreement, rests on the defendant asserting it, a motion under Rule 12(c) is generally not the appropriate vehicle to mount … Neither did the Parties use universal release language but rather, again, qualified the release as being “Related to Invoice 2108.”

HILL v. TOWN OF MOCKSVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 21, 2021

The case was before the Fourth Circuit on the question of qualified immunity. … Having reached this result, the court need not consider Defendants’ alternative arguments, including that Defendants are protected from suit by qualified immunity.

CRABTREE v. SAUL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 21, 2019

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 8-30.) … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established an error warranting relief.

MCALLISTER v. WELLPATH HEALTH CARE

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 29, 2020

shall . . . dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if [it] – (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … § 1983 on the same requirements established for municipal corporations. Rodriguez v. Smithfield Packing Co, Inc., 338 F.3d 348, 355 (4th Cir. 2003).

BONE v. UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 4, 2021

Ct. 1009 (2020), clearly invalidates the analysis in [the] Order and [the] Recommendation. … News 1973, pp. 2076, 2080, yet such barriers were clearly not erected with the aim or intent of excluding the handicapped.

WELLS v. LYNCH

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 15, 2024

To establish a violation of either statute, plaintiffs must prove “(1) they have a disability; (2) they are otherwise qualified to receive the benefits of a public service, program, or … Mar. 18, 2024) (“In Baird, the Fourth Circuit clearly and unequivocally held that the “motivating factor” standard applied to ADA Title II claims. . . .

WOODS v. BENTLEY

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

Defendants answered the Complaint, invoking various defenses (to include qualified immunity). (See Docket Entry 26 (the “Answer”).)? Thereafter, the parties commenced discovery. … The movant bears the burden of establishing the absence of such dispute. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

BOWLIN v. O'MALLEY

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

The Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI), established by Title XVI of the Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 ef seg., 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.

United States v. Vanguard Inv. Co., Inc.

694 F. Supp. 1219 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 10, 1988

In any event, the Court need not resolve this matter as Vanguard clearly violated the regulations pertaining to capital impairment and financial reporting. … Additionally, Vanguard’s admissions relating to the original default on the $280,000 debenture establish a violation of 13 C.F.R. § 107.906 . 4.

HALL v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 6, 2024

“These regulations establish a ‘sequential evaluation process’ to determine whether a claimant is disabled.” Id. … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has established an error warranting remand.

THOMAS v. EAST PENN MANUFACTURING CO.

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 28, 2020

Plaintiff’s vacant position was filled by a “less qualified white employee.” (Id. ¶ 36.) … A contrary doctrine of res judicata “would in effect confer on [defendants] a partial immunity from civil liability for future violations.” Id. at 329.

KING v. KIJAKAZI

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

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 9-42.) … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established an error warranting relief.

EVANS v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 3, 2022

that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80. … establishes that Brown’s heart condition does not meet or equal the criteria of Listing 4.04C.

WARD v. SAUL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 2, 2021

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 19-34.) … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established grounds for relief.

BRADSHER v. ALAMANCE-BURLINGTON BOARD OF EDUCATION

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 12, 2024

Had no method for consulting with qualified internal or external security professionals or otherwise consider the need for additional security measures as to students who posed a high risk … The Court is recommending dismissal of all federal claims, and the remaining state law claims raise important issues of state law regarding the liability of school boards and teachers and claims of immunity.

VINES v. SAUL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 2, 2021

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 244-61.) … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has established errors warranting remand.’

B. v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA

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

B.’s son, A.B., qualified as “a beneficiary of the Plan” (id., @ 7). … The Court may also consider documents “attached to [the] motion to dismiss,” so long as they qualify as “clearly integral to, and w[ere] relied upon in, [the] complaint” and the plaintiff “does

DAVIS v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 29, 2024

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 45-68.) … d[id] not support [the state agency medical consultant]’s interpretation of [the primary care physician]’s treatment notes” as reflecting a medically required cane, because those notes “clearly

DISABILITY RIGHTS NORTH CAROLINA v. THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 12, 2025

To establish a violation of either statute, plaintiffs must prove “(1) they have a disability; (2) they are otherwise qualified to receive the benefits of a public service, program, or … Rather, the undersigned concludes that DRNC has failed to clearly establish the limited circumstances necessary to entitle it to the extraordinary remedy at the preliminary injunction stage.

SEAMAN V. DUKE UNIVERSITY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 25, 2019

In October 2015, Duke moved to dismiss in part on grounds of the state action immunity doctrine. Doc. 30. … The expert opinions clearly benefited the Class.