Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,026 results
1.22s
District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 23, 2024
The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 18-40.) … Hines, 453 F.3d at 562-63. 6 A claimant thus can qualify as disabled via two paths through the SEP.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 26, 2020
It remains unclear whether Plaintiff qualified as a pretrial detainee at the time of the incident in question. … First, the Complaint clearly indicates that two distinct individuals, an “Officer” anda “Sgt.,” commenced beating Plaintiff with sticks after handcuffing him. (See id. (“[After Sgt.
Cited 0 timesUnknownCananwill, Inc. v. EMAR Group, Inc.
250 B.R. 533 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 5, 1999
“The effect of a judicial admission is to establish the fact for the purposes of the case and to eliminate it entirely from the issues to be tried.” Rollins v. … The Bureau shall have no jurisdiction over excess workers’ compensation insurance for employers qualifying as self-insurers as provided in G.S. 97-93.... N.C.Gen.Stat. § 58-36-1(3). 19 .
Cited 8 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 30, 2022
These findings, in and of themselves, establish that Plaintiff experienced pain when walking. … criteria being established.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 16, 2023
The creditor shall clearly and conspicuously disclose, in accordance with regulations of the Bureau, to any [borrower] in a transaction subject to this section the rights of … Post-Rescission Challenge The Complaint’s failure to establish the relevant property as a principal dwelling necessarily precludes Plaintiff’s claim under Section 1635(b), which provides for
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict 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 seq., ptovides benefits to indigent disabled persons. … These findings clearly support the RFC as written, and it is not the role of the Court to reweigh the evidence.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 17, 2020
Third Element: Qualified for Position Regarding qualifications for a position, a plaintiff’s raw assertion that she was qualified is insufficient to meet the 12(b)(6) standard. … At the motion to dismiss stage, however, a plaintiff need not conclusively establish that they were as or more qualified for the position than the employee who 8 Plaintiff is not
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 9, 2021
The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 12-27.) … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established an error warranting remand.
Cited 0 timesUnknownBITCO GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION v. SAS RETAIL SERVICES, LLC
District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 10, 2025
Stack’s own negligence would be invalid under both Maryland and New York law,” SAS almost exclusively cited New York cases in its reply and invoked a New York statute that it argues “clearly … New York law requires that “[o]ne who seeks to recover as a third-party beneficiary of a contract must establish that a valid and binding contract exists between other parties, that the contract
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 5, 2026
But here, the court must draw all reasonable inferences in Riley’s favor. 9 Defendants argue that Riley has failed to plead that he was significantly more qualified than Overbee based on the specific standards … Ct. of Appeals, 626 F.3d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 2010)).10 Here, Riley’s amended complaint clearly connects his termination to his failure to sign the NDA.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 18, 2024
that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80. … Here, the AL] reviewed the evidence, explained her decision, and clearly explained the teasons for her determination. ‘That determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Cited 0 timesUnknownASBURY v. CREDIT CORP SOLUTIONS, INC.
District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 8, 2022
Tangible harms, such as physical harm and monetary harm, “readily qualify as concrete injuries under Article III.” TransUnion, 141 S. Ct. at 2204. … Spokeo requires the complaint to include “clearly alleged facts demonstrating each element” of standing. 578 U.S. at 338 (cleaned up).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDonta L. H. v. Frank J. Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 6, 2026
These errors might have been harmless if the record clearly demonstrated [the VE] knew [ the plaintiff’s birthdate] . . . .” … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established an error warranting relief.
Cited 0 timesUnknownSV International, Inc. v. Fu Jian Quanyu Industry Co.
820 F. Supp. 2d 677 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 26, 2011
The Federal Circuit held that Apotex’s new product formulation fell within the literal scope of the first drug application found to be infringing and that *685 Apotex failed to establish non-infringement under the reverse … Holding otherwise would “entitle the [wrongful actor] to continue or repeat the unlawful conduct with immunity from further suit” by virtue of a prior suit on the same legal theory. Smith v.
Cited 6 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 22, 2021
The burden is on Petitioner to establish that fees and expenses are “necessary” as required by 22 U.S.C. 9007(b)(3). See Neves, 637 F. … Within the non-legal fees requested, only the phone call to court clearly qualifies as a “necessary expense[] incurred by or on behalf of the petitioner.” 22 U.S.C. § 9007(b)(3).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 10, 2025
North Carolina law “established [the NCAOC as] a State office,” N.C. Gen. … Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant NCAOC do not allege facts showing that North Carolina waived its immunity under the Eleventh Amendment for such claims. (See Docket Entry 10 at 19-23.)
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 30, 2021
“RFC ts to be “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80. … Casper clearly qualifies as an examining, “acceptable medical soutce.” Such soutces ate entitled to evaluation under the criteria set out in 20 CPR. 416.927(c).
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 27, 2020
Thus, the ALJ clearly did not “overlook[ Plaintiff]’s use of a cane and her use of narcotic pain medicine” (Docket Entry 13 at 9-10). … First, the record does not establish that Plaintiff suffered from “homelessness” during the relevant period.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 1, 2022
The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 12-29.) … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established an error warranting remand.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Oct 7, 2022
Plaintiff has not established grounds for relief. … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established errors warranting remand.
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna