Case law

MOUNCE v. BERRYHILL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 7, 2020

The ALJ subsequently determined that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 19-37.) … Hines, 453 F.3d at 562-63. 5 A claimant thus can qualify as disabled via two paths through the SEP.

Farrin v. Thigpen

173 F. Supp. 2d 427 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 16, 2001

Under *439 Plaintiffs’ logic, all ads would be immune from challenge as long as they were subject to more than one interpretation. … The junior man’s expression clearly indicates that he knows the senior man will not be happy with the name of the firm he identifies.

SHORE v. THE CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG HOSPITAL AUTHORITY D/B/A CAROLINAS HEALTHCARE SYSTEM

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 30, 2019

It established and maintains three employee benefit plans: the Pension Plan of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Hospital Authority 1996). … The presence of these factors indicates that the Authority “clearly has powers beyond those ‘of a private corporation’” and affirms this court’s conclusion that the Authority

Eubanks v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

336 F. Supp. 2d 521 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 2, 2004

Eubanks appears capable of performing sedentary-light work at any occupation for which she is duly qualified.” (Pence Aff. Ex. B at 236.) … Where the funds traceable to overpayments are dissipated, establishing a general liability to be satisfied by another source, in this case any amounts due Eu-banks for disability benefits wrongfully withheld, sounds in law

United States v. Johnson

122 F. Supp. 3d 272 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 7, 2015

In its June 30 letter to Albright, the Government clearly states that the recordings “may contain information relevant to” the Government’s investigation. (Doc. 131-3 at 2.) … That evidence’ is insufficient to establish a pattern or practice under prevailing case law.

PACCHIANA v. PACCHIANA

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 7, 2021

at 14), (11) New York possesses an interest in Defendant’s alleged payment obligation arising from the Meeting (id.), (iii) court congestion fails to clearly favor either transfer or retention … The record further fails to clarify which party qualifies as promisee and promissor, see Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 2 (Am. L. Inst. 1981).

HOOKER v. THE CITADEL SALISBURY LLC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 20, 2023

Second, the California regulations the nursing facility allegedly violated specifically require each facility to “employ an adequate number of qualified personnel to carry out all of the functions … Additionally, the individual inquiries necessary for each class member will be further complicated by Defendants’ affirmative defenses, such as statutory immunity under North Carolina

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. TINTED BREW, INC.

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 7, 2019

The party seeking removal has the burden to show the case qualifies for it. Lontz v. Tharp, 413 F.3d 435, 439 (4th Cir. 2005). … Lontz, 413 F.3d at 439–40.4 As “[f]ederalism concerns strongly counsel against imputing to Congress an intent to displace a whole panoply of state law absent some clearly expressed direction,” “[t]he presumption . . .

MASSEY v. O'MALLEY

District 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. … Because the rationale behind this figure is clearly discernible from the AL]J’s decision, the Court finds no basis for remand. C.

TREADWELL v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 9, 2024

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 144-59.) … on November 16, 2021)).’7 Nevertheless, the ALJ here clearly erred.

Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Sangiacomo N.A. Ltd.

11 F. Supp. 2d 773 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 22, 1998

Third, the volume of sales of the Sommer-set design in this ease cannot establish secondary meaning. … Clearly, the issue of whether SanGiacomo copied Ashley’s Sommerset design presents a question of fact.

HUTCHENS v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 9, 2021

(Tr. 81-116.)2 The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 144-57.) … Hines, 453 F.3d at 562-63. 7 A claimant thus can qualify as disabled via two paths through the SEP.

BARHAM v. DUDEK

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 10, 2025

Id. at 179.3 Step four then requites 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 guidance, 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 individual

ECHOLS v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 12, 2023

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 277-94.) … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has established errors warranting remand.

CLEMENT v. HOEKSTRA

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 25, 2021

Thus, 8 Petitioner’s Grounds for Relief qualify as unexhausted, but not procedurally defaulted. … The Fourth Circuit has provided guidance in regards to the clearly established law governing ineffective assistance claims: In order to establish an ineffective assistance of counsel claim

MEYER v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 11, 2024

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 atticulated so the

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Convatec Inc.

268 F.R.D. 226 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 12, 2010

This provision “mandates that sanctions be imposed on attorneys who fail to meet the standards established in the first portion of Rule 26(g).” … McDaniel, 591 F.Supp. 1090, 1114 (E.D.N.C. 1984) (“[T]he burden of showing that the requested discovery is not relevant to the issues in this litigation is clearly on the party resisting discovery.”); Flora, 81 F.R.D. at

GIFT SURPLUS, LLC v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA EX REL. ROY COOPER, GOVERNOR

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 7, 2022

Gift Surplus has established that it has a personal stake in the outcome of this litigation. … Flipside, Hoffman Ests., Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982), Gift Surplus does not have standing because its conduct is clearly proscribed by § 14-306.4. Doc. 42 at 20.

HATCH v. DEMAYO

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

Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing these elements. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). … In that opinion, the Court concluded that “[t]o the extent that the above exceptions allow law enforcement agencies to use or disclose Plaintiffs’ personal information, neither exception immunizes liability for Defendants

NEBLETT v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 25, 2022

The ALJ subsequently ruled that Plaintiff did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 49-59.) … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established an error warranting remand.