Case law

Kandies v. Lee

252 F. Supp. 2d 252 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 4, 2003

Petitioner, apparently seeks to rely on fragments from the concurring opinions to establish a new rule of law. Woodard does not establish such a right. … The recitation of the facts, as noted above, makes it clear that the North Carolina Supreme Court’s finding of no Batson violation is not clearly contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Supreme Court law and precedent

FIELLO v. DAIMLER TRUCKS NORTH AMERICA LLC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 12, 2021

“A plaintiff in a negligence action who asserts mental or physical injury places that mental or physical injury clearly in controversy and provides the defendant with good cause for an examination … Ewert, or any other designated psychological expert or provider is a qualified expert in any field or is qualified or allowed to testify as to any opinions.

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP v. COOPER

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

Daye, unnamed election officials and poll workers (still not clearly identified), Mr. Perry, Ms. … Finally, Plaintiffs’ inclusion (in some of their categories) of references to the 2023 municipal elections and the 2024 primary elections does not retroactively immunize their earlier failure to

AUSTIN v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 2025

that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80. … ‘Thus, this is not a case where the ALJ clearly or explicitly considered this evidence under a broader umbrella impairment; instead, because the AL] does not mention these impairments or discuss this medical

NORTH CAROLINA A. PHILIP RANDOLPH INSTITUTE v. THE NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

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

Lastly, the Court held that the NCSBE Defendants were not immune under the Eleventh Amendment because of the Ex parte Young exception for ongoing violations. (See id. at 15-17.) … There are three elements required to establish standing.

HUGHES v. SAUL

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

Those arguments fail to establish an entitlement to relief. a. … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established any errors warranting relief.

YANCEY v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 8, 2024

The Supplemental Security Income Program (SSD), established by Title XVI of the Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 ef seg., provides benefits to indigent disabled persons. … From this discussion, the Court can clearly discern the ALJ’s meaning without “filling in the blanks,” and the AL]’s explanation and analysis are sufficient to allow for judicial review.

HANDY v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 31, 2022

Id. at 179.4 Step four then requires the AL] 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. … As the Atwood court determined under similar circumstances, “the facts found by the ALJ clearly support the ultimate conclusion that Plaintiff suffered from his impairments, but was not disabled.

SMITH v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2024

that REC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80. … In the present case, the AL] did not address NP Strickland’s opinions at all, and the examination records in question clearly contain evidence contradicting the ALJ’s findings and included nowhere else in her analysis.

TURMELLE v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2024

The Supplemental Secutity Income Progtam (SSI), established by Title XVI of the Act as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq., provides benefits to indigent disabled persons. … When evaluating a claimant’s symptoms, the ALJ’s decision must “contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated

GARLAND v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 24, 2023

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 15-29.) … May 23, 2018) (Biggs, J.), that explanation must itself be stated clearly enough to be susceptible to judicial review.

AKBAYEVA

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 25, 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. … These limitations are specifically addressed to Plaintiff's reported difficulties, and are clearly designed to reduce any triggers that could impact her concentration, persistence, and pace.

DOYLE,et al v. ADVANCED FRAUD SOLUTIONS, LLC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 19, 2020

Warren’s April 2017 EEOC charge qualifies as participation activity. … Plaintiffs’ complaints to AFS were not clearly tied to Title VII.

ANDERSON v. NOVANT HEALTH

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

The instant Motion does not qualify as one of those exceedingly rare cases warranting relief under Rule 60(b) (6), particularly given that, by “inappropriate disposition” (Docket … at 2 (grousing about “untrustworthy interpretation of cited legal authorities” and describing Judgment as “clearly contrary to law”), 5 (purporting to “address[] the Judges [sic] abuse of discretion

Federated Mutual Insurance v. Williams Trull Co.

838 F. Supp. 2d 370 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 1, 2011

His statement of “just a few thousand dollars” was clearly qualified (“probably”), indicating his lack of knowledge to Federated. 137. … To establish that Williams Trull, through Puckett, made a material misrepresentation or omission during Federated’s investigation of the Claim, Federated must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that a statement

BREWER v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 13, 2023

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 12-30.) … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established an error warranting remand.

STOSSEL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 2, 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. … Under the applicable regulations, the ALJ’s decision must “contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. v. LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 28, 2023

qualified as STOLI and lacked present intent to challenge such policies for lack of insurable interest).9 Under the circumstances, the Complaint fails to establish that Defendant … A proposed amendment qualifies as futile if it cannot withstand a motion to dismiss. See Perkins v.

ROUSE v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2024

Under the applicable regulations, the AL]’s decision must “contain specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s symptoms, be consistent with and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the … Kijakazi, “[s]eparate and apart from his literal mobility, [a claimant] can qualify for benefits if he is in sufficient pain.

GILMORE v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 21, 2022

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 7- 24.) … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established grounds for reversal or remand.