Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,026 results
2.98s
District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 14, 2023
“evidentiary burden of proving that [the claimant] remains able to work other jobs available in the community,” the claimant qualifies as disabled. Hines, 453 F.3d at 567. II. … However, the record clearly reflects that Dr. Rominger saw Plaintiff for an in-person visit on May 24, 2019, and teletherapy visits on April 16, 2020, and December 17, 2020, in light of COVID-19 precautions.
Cited 0 timesUnknown468 B.R. 763 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 6, 2012
However, a debtor’s mere failure to pay his taxes is insufficient proof to establish that he has acted to evade or defeat his taxes. E.g., Haas v. … As the court noted in its prior ruling, the complaint clearly raised sufficient facts to support this claim that has a straightforward application. See Clayton, 2011 WL 6180033 , at *7 n. 7.
Cited 7 timesPublishedWORLD INSPECTION NETWORK INTERNATIONAL LLC v. J. STROUT HOLDINGS, LLC
District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 29, 2024
at 19, and must “clearly show that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust, or that the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or overreaching,” id. at 15. … Analysis The parties dispute whether Section 12.03(b) qualifies as a mandatory or permissive forum-selection clause.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2024
Aerotek is your direct source to find qualified & skilled employees and locate great career opportunities with industry leading companies. … (Doc. 67) at 24 (arguing Plaintiffs need not establish Defendants’ intent to infringe).)
Cited 0 timesUnknownRobert J. v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 19, 2026
An impairment that manifests erred in improperly evaluating [his] only some of those criteria, no matter statements about the intensity, how severely, does not qualify.”). … Sec., 769 F.3d 861, established exertional limitations.” 865 (4th Cir. 2014). Yet, the ALJ Id.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 6, 2020
The ALJ subsequently ruled that C.B.S., Jr. did not qualify as disabled under the Act. (Tr. 7-27.) … CONCLUSION Plaintiff has not established an error warranting remand.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 28, 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. … Although Plaintiff now argues that the ALJ failed to consider evidence regarding the natute and extent of Plaintiffs activities, the ALJ clearly recounted Plaintiffs testimony that her pain and other symptoms limited her
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 2026
Evaluation of the safety of the ATEV indicated no safety signals attributable to ATEV mechanical weakness, contamination, or immune rejection. … SEC, 580 F.3d at 243 (holding that district court did not clearly err in finding plaintiffs established strong inference of scienter, where the court found individual defendant had actual knowledge
Cited 0 timesUnknownALLEN v. ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT
District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 15, 2022
revocation of [her] right to proceed [IFP] is clearly appropriate.” (italics omitted)). … Thus, the [clomplaint fails to establish a Section 1983 claim against [them] . . .”), xvecommendation adopted, 2020 WL 353539 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 2020), aff'd, 805 F.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 15, 2022
revocation of [her] right to proceed [IFP] is clearly appropriate.” (italics omitted)). … Thus, the [clomplaint fails to establish a Section 1983 claim against [them] . . .”), xvecommendation adopted, 2020 WL 353539 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 2020), aff'd, 805 F.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 14, 2026
From Plaintiff’s most recent filings, the Online Inquiry establishes the following undisputed facts. … “[T]he date of an adverse employment decision is the relevant date for determining whether a plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability.” E.E.O.C. v.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 15, 2022
revocation of [her] right to proceed [IFP] is clearly appropriate.” (italics omitted)). … Thus, the [clomplaint fails to establish a Section 1983 claim against [them] . . .”), xvecommendation adopted, 2020 WL 353539 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 2020), aff'd, 805 F.
Cited 0 timesUnknownALLEN v. UNC ADAMS SCHOOL OF DENTISTRY
District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 15, 2022
revocation of [her] right to proceed [IFP] is clearly appropriate.” (italics omitted)). … Thus, the [clomplaint fails to establish a Section 1983 claim against [them] . . .”), xvecommendation adopted, 2020 WL 353539 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 2020), aff'd, 805 F.
Cited 0 timesUnknownALLEN v. GUILFORD TECHNICAL COMMUNITY COLLEGE
District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 15, 2022
revocation of [her] right to proceed [IFP] is clearly appropriate.” (italics omitted)). … Thus, the [clomplaint fails to establish a Section 1983 claim against [them] . . .”), xvecommendation adopted, 2020 WL 353539 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 2020), aff'd, 805 F.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 15, 2022
revocation of [her] right to proceed [IFP] is clearly appropriate.” (italics omitted)). … Thus, the [clomplaint fails to establish a Section 1983 claim against [them] . . .”), xvecommendation adopted, 2020 WL 353539 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 2020), aff'd, 805 F.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 15, 2022
revocation of [her] right to proceed [IFP] is clearly appropriate.” (italics omitted)). … Thus, the [clomplaint fails to establish a Section 1983 claim against [them] . . .”), xvecommendation adopted, 2020 WL 353539 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 2020), aff'd, 805 F.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 15, 2022
revocation of [her] right to proceed [IFP] is clearly appropriate.” (italics omitted)). … Thus, the [clomplaint fails to establish a Section 1983 claim against [them] . . .”), xvecommendation adopted, 2020 WL 353539 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 2020), aff'd, 805 F.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 28, 2022
that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work”; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80. … She has pursued her disability application, which clearly demonstrates that she understands instructions and requirements for vatious processes, and successfully responds to them.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 14, 2022
that [the claimant] remains able to work other jobs available in the community,” the claimant qualifies as disabled. Hines, 453 F.3d at 567. Ill. … Chapter III, Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 2, to establish that claimant’s vocational ability. See McLain v. Schweiker, 715 F.2d 866, 870 n. 1 (4th Cir.1983).
Cited 0 timesUnknownCone Ex Rel. Cone v. Randolph County Schools Board of Education
657 F. Supp. 2d 667 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 22, 2009
the school system” and concluded that whether “a particular service or method can feasibly be provided in a specific special education setting is an administrative determination” that state and local officials were better qualified … Some of the facts, the SRO opined, were "clearly contradicted by the record,” and facts established by RCS' witnesses and cross-examination of the Cones' witnesses were not included in the ALJ's decision.
Cited 6 timesPublished
Ask Donna