Case law

AZIMA v. DEL ROSSO

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 10, 2021

Instead, they merely establish that Del Rosso exchanged texts with Jain in 2020, (Doc. 64-1 ¶ 81(c); Doc. 64-2 ¶ 81(c)); they do not establish that those text messages include the particular … Plaintiff cannot establish the second element because the 2016 D.C.

FAIRLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 10, 2026

qualify for compensatory time or overtime pay regardless of … working in the office or remotely … three clearly prohibits.

Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

444 F. Supp. 2d 435 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 8, 2006

Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 153.83 (c), Syn-genta’s studies would qualify as “exclusive use data” in the following circumstances: (c) “Exclusive use study” means a study that meets each of the following requirements: (1) The … It is well-established that parties must exhaust prescribed administrative remedies before seeking relief from the federal courts. See McCarthy v.

BROWNLEE v. SAUL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 16, 2019

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. … The cuttent evidence, however, fails to establish an impaitment that is accompanied by signs that ate teflective of listing-level severity.” cr. at 16.)

HILDERBRAND v. PELHAM TRANSPORTATION CORPORATION

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 30, 2021

Plaintiffs’ contention that the facts as alleged establish that the Dejournettes “authorized and participated in Hilderbrand’s termination” to a degree sufficient to establish their individual liability in unpersuasive … In sum, the undersigned finds that Plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the Dejournette’s individual liability are without merit because the allegations here are clearly distinguishable from the facts present in Alexander that

DIAMOND

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jan 30, 2026

The inmate must clearly explain the nature of the complaint and the reasons for not following the regular grievance procedure. … The defendant bears the burden of establishing that a prisoner failed to exhaust administrative remedies. See Jones v.

CRAIGE v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 25, 2020

However, as clearly established by St. … This court and the Fourth Circuit have also unjustified as a matter of law, the court need not reach the issue of whether Rigsbee would have qualified as an insured under Defendants’ respective policies

Madison River Management Co. v. Business Management Software Corp.

387 F. Supp. 2d 521 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 31, 2005

The evidence presented here establishes that the Letter of Intent was not intended to memorialize all of the details agreed to by the parties. … A condition is "any fact or event which qualifies a duty to perform,” Costello Publ'g Co. v. Rotelle, 670 F.2d 1035 , 1045 n. 15 (D.C.Cir.1981) (citing Arthur L.

Gibson v. Total Car Franchising Corp.

223 F.R.D. 265 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 28, 2004

The affidavit does not provide information sufficient to establish that Mr. Gibson proffered false testimony. Although Mr. … False testimony, standing alone, does not qualify as fraud on the court because it is an “evil[] that can and should be exposed at trial, and the legal system encourages and expects litigants to root them out as early as

PREMIER RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL, LLC v. MEDPACE, INC.

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2020

Jurisdiction In order to exercise general jurisdiction, Medpace must be incorporated in North Carolina, have its principal place of business in North Carolina, or qualify … At one end of the spectrum are situations where a defendant clearly does business over the Internet.

WADE v. JMJ ENTERPRISES, LLC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2023

Plaintiff also argues that her counsel is qualified to be appointed as class counsel. (Id. at 13.) … The Court does not find that Plaintiff’s statements clearly demonstrate “a lack of credibility regarding the allegations being made or a lack of knowledge or understanding concerning what the suit is about.”

WILSON v. KIJAKAZI

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 14, 2022

[which] means 8 that RFC, the claimant can “perform past relevant work’; if so, the claimant does not qualify as disabled. Id. at 179-80. … In fact, as clearly set out in the administrative decision, Dr. Steiner served as a medical expert in this case. (Ir. at 19.)

WILLIAMSON v. PRIME SPORTS MARKETING, LLC

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 15, 2021

To qualify as a clear error for the purposes of amending a judgment, the controverted prior decision must be “dead wrong,” not “just maybe or probably wrong; it must . . . strike [the court] as wrong with the force of a … The Fourth Circuit has cautioned that “[l]eave to amend, however, should only be denied on the ground of futility when the proposed amendment is clearly insufficient or frivolous on its face.”

CARTER v. O'MALLEY

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 26, 2024

Id. at 179.5 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. … 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.

HOLLY HILL MALL, LLC v. DUNHAM'S ATHLEISURE CORPORATION

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

The parties negotiated the terms of the Co-Tenancy Clause, specifically the percentage of small shop space that qualified as a Co-Tenant. (Compare ECF No. 36-4 at 10 with ECF No. 36-6 at 9.) … Under North Carolina law, when a court is tasked to interpret a contract, “[i]t must be presumed the parties intended what the language used clearly expresses . . . and the contract must be construed to mean what on its

THOMAS v. BERRYHILL

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 18, 2020

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. … However, if the claimant establishes an inability to return to prior wotk, the analysis proceeds to the fifth step, which “requires the [Government] to prove that a significant number of jobs exist which the claimant could

CROUSE, JR. v. SSA

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 26, 2019

However, if the claimant establishes an inability to return to prior work, the analysis proceeds to the fifth step, which “requites the [Government] to prove that a significant number of jobs exist which the claimant could … May 23, 2018) Biggs, J.), that explanation must itself be stated clearly enough to be susceptible to judicial review. ¢ Moreover, the ALJ did not provide any analysis to help explain how this testimony was interpreted

WALL RECYCLING, LLC v. 3TEK GLOBAL, LLC

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

Finally, North Carolina has a valid interest in the resolution of disputes involving its businesses, especially when North Carolina law is potentially involved, and Wall clearly has an interest … do not otherwise establish a contract.”).

PHILLIPS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 21, 2026

schedule, the intake process was not completed until November 18, 2025” (id.); 8) “fo]n November 20, 2025, OARS sent Plaintiff a determination letter acknowledging that Plaintiff qualified … For the reasons that follow, the record (detailed in the Introduction) establishes no such necessity in this case.

Tatum v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

926 F. Supp. 2d 648 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 25, 2013

It is, therefore, incumbent upon RJR to establish that its conduct in removing the Nabisco stock was objectively prudent. … Since Professor Lys is not qualified to give an opinion as to a fiduciary's duties, the Court will not consider his analysis as relevant to the procedural prudence analysis. .