Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,026 results
2.67s
District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 21, 2020
Plaintiff has not established entitlement to relief under the extremely limited review standard. A. … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established any errors warranting relief.
Cited 0 timesUnknownTEIJIN AUTOMOTIVE TECHNOLOGIES NA HOLDING CORP. v. SOMPO AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY
District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 27, 2025
It reasoned that the deceptive denial letter also established the breach of contract, and thus there was “one continuous transaction.” … Here, Sompo’s allegedly deceptive denial letter also establishes the breach of contract, as in DENC.
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States v. Duke Energy Corp.
981 F. Supp. 2d 435 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 6, 2013
EPA found that ADEC's conclusion was "not supported by the record and [was] clearly erroneous,” and its decision was “both arbitrary and erroneous.” … In Alaska , the Supreme Court observed that EPA’s interpretation, presented in guidance memoranda, did not qualify for Chevron deference but did warrant respect.
Cited 3 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 26, 2026
The Supplemental Security Income Program (SSD), established by Title XVI of the Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq., provides benefits to indigent disabled persons. … that REC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work’; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 6, 2020
More specifically, the Court may not grant relief unless a state court decision on the merits “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law … To qualify 3 The Court may deny a claim on the merits despite a lack of exhaustion.
Cited 0 timesUnknownHAMPAPUR VENKATNARAYAN v. JADDOU
District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 30, 2024
While not To qualify for an “exceptional ability” visa, however, the alien must also provide evidence that his setvices ate sought by a United States employer. Id. … To the extent Plaintiff argues that the record clearly establishes that he met his evidentiary burden and therefore the only possible basis for rejecting his application would have been because the agency believed
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2025
that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80. … If, at this step, the Government cannot carry its “evidentiaty burden of proving that [the claimant] remains able to work other jobs available in the community,” the claimant qualifies as disabled.
Cited 0 timesUnknown736 F. Supp. 2d 980 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 8, 2010
Tracy, Morrison, and the passengers would have seen the ground during this time, just as Nelson clearly saw the aircraft and at least two of its passengers. … United States, 238 F.Supp. 317, 319-20 (E.D.Pa.1965); (3) when the controller is better qualified than the pilot to evaluate the danger, Hartz v.
Cited 7 timesPublished378 F. Supp. 2d 639 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 19, 2005
See Local Rule 56.1(c) (“The page limitation for briefs on all motions, established by LR 7.3(d), apply to summary judgment briefs.”); Local Rule 7.3(d) (establishing that “responsive briefs are limited in length to 20 pages … Therefore, the summary recounted here clearly reflects Plaintiffs version of the facts.
Cited 2 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 5, 2024
that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work’; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80. … In doing so, the ALJ clearly addressed all of the relevant evidence in the case record as required by 20 C.F.R. § 1545(a)(3) and SSR 96-8p. B.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 31, 2026
Id. at 179.3 Step four then requires the ALJ to assess whether, based on that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80. … If, at this step, the Government cannot catty its “evidentiary burden of proving that [the claimant] remains able to work other jobs available in the community,” the claimant qualifies as disabled.
Cited 0 timesUnknownNORTH CAROLINA MUT. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. McKINLEY FINANCIAL SERVICE
386 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 2, 2005
McKinley has clearly done so by stating that Collegiate and Ms. White withheld their commissions at the wrong rate with respect to Oakland University. … White is not a party to the Second Letter Agreement and so should not be liable for it, the Court finds that the Second Letter Agreement clearly shows an intent by the parties to bind Ms.
Cited 6 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 25, 2023
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.
Cited 0 timesUnknownBARTELL v. GRIFOLS SHARED SERVICES NA, INC.
District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 15, 2022
The moving party bears the burden of “clearly establish[ing] entitlement to the relief sought.” Id. … reader as compared to the self-serve kiosks, Plaintiff has not “clearly establishe[d]” that, Di Biase, 872 F.3d at 230, such that this court could find Plaintiff has demonstrated
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 26, 2023
The Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI), established by Title XVI of the Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et se., ptovides benefits to indigent disabled petsons. … that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80.
Cited 0 timesUnknownCOVIL CORPORATION v. USF&G COMPANY
District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 17, 2021
until after liability has been established,” id. … For that reason, “confidentiality provisions inserted by parties into private settlement agreements do not immunize those agreements from discovery.”
Cited 0 timesUnknown345 F. Supp. 2d 521 · 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.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 25, 2024
Thus, [Plaintiff] must establish disability on or before that date in order to be entitled to a period of disability and disability insurance benefits.” (Ir. at 14.) … Here, the ALJ reviewed the evidence, explained her decision, and clearly explained the reasons for her determination. That determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2024
that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the clatmant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80. … Here, the ALJ clearly considered Plaintiffs purported ongoing ability to work— mentioning it five times in her decision—when making this finding. (Tr. at 35-38.)
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 3, 2024
Id.1 As part of this review, the Court may anticipate affirmative defenses that clearly appear on the face of the complaint. Nasim v. Warden, Md. … Stat § 1-52 (establishing three-year statute of limitations for personal injury).
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna