Case law

Wirtz v. Wrightenberry

218 F. Supp. 404 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 24, 1963

The defendant thereafter dyed or bleached, boarded, paired, folded, inspected, sorted and otherwise prepared the hose for marketing. … As is set out in Goldberg v.

CELLULAR SALES OF KNOXVILLE, INC. v. CHAPMAN

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 9, 2020

Brown, 348 F.2d 689, 692 (10th Cir. 1965)). … See also Elox Corp. v.

Jordan v. Randolph Mills, Inc.

29 B.R. 398 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 30, 1983

Federal Power Commission v. … Missouri v.

ROBINSON v. BROOKS

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · May 14, 2020

Nagy v. FMC Butner, 376 F.3d 252, 255 (4th Cir. 2004). … Whitney, Bradley & Brown, Inc. v. Kammermann, 436 F. App’x 257, 258 (4th Cir. 2011) (citing Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985)).

International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. General Telephone & Electronics Corp.

380 F. Supp. 976 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Aug 1, 1974

See Cauefield v. … See Crane Co. v.

Swaim v. Westchester Academy, Inc.

208 F. Supp. 2d 579 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 21, 2002

Plaintiff, at some point in 1998, Headmaster Peter Cowen attempted to change Plaintiffs status from that of a year-round employee to that of a nine-month employee. 1 Plaintiff complained about this proposed change to the Board … See, e.g., Pardasani v.

BROCK v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATION

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

See Combs v. Bakker, 886 F.2d 673, 676 (4th Cir. 1989). … See Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 122 (2014) (citing Goodyear Dunlap Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)).

Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Schumann

474 F. Supp. 2d 758 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Sep 28, 2006

The Christian Science Board of Directors of the First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Nolan, 259 F.3d 209 (4th Cir.2001). … Plant Genetic Sys., N.V. v. Ciba Seeds, 933 F.Supp. 519, 527 (M.D.N.C.1996)(citing Datasouth Computer Corp. v. Three Dimensional Techs., Inc., 719 F.Supp. 446, 450-51 (W.D.N.C.1989)). Republic Mortg. Ins. Co. v.

French v. Blackburn

428 F. Supp. 1351 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 1977

Board of Education, 373 U.S. 668 , 83 S.Ct. 1433 , 10 L.Ed.2d 622 (1963). 6 . Although the respondent is taken into "custody,” the “confinement” is only in a place where examination and treatment are available. … Suzuki v. Quisenberry, 411 F.Supp. 1113 (D.Hawaii 1976); Lynch v. Baxley, 386 F.Supp. 378 (M.D.Ala.1974); Lessard v.

SARHAN v. UNITED STATES CITIZENS & IMMIGRATION SERVICES

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Dec 22, 2023

Frazier v. Prince George’s Cnty., 86 F.4th 537, 543 (4th Cir. 2023) (citing Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)); see also Pashby v. … v. Haver, 171 F.3d 943 (4th Cir. 1999), and Gilchrist v. General Elec. Cap.

Alliance for Legal Action v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

314 F. Supp. 2d 534 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Apr 27, 2004

Members of the board of directors and contributors also use the municipal water supply that draws on the stream channels and wetlands surrounding the airport. Id. … Ctr. v.

MACREGEN, INC. v. BURNETTE

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

provides that MacRegen “may from time to time request” Burnette to “render such services . . . including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing:” Advise CEO and Board … Albert v. Alex. Brown Mgmt. Servs., Inc., Nos. 762-N, 763-N, 2005 WL 2130607, at *8 (Del. Ch. Aug. 26, 2005). Cf. Kuroda v. SPJS Holdings, L.L.C., 971 A.2d 872, 891 (Del.

POUNCEY v. GUILFORD COUNTY

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

Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249; see also Brown v. Sears Auto. Ctr., 222 F. … See JKC Holding Co. v.

FORD v. FORSYTH COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 16, 2023

Moody-Williams v. LapoScience, 953 F. Supp. 2d 677, 680 (E.D.N.C. 2013) (emphasis in otiginal); see also Brown v. N.C. Dept. of Corr, 612 F. 3d 720, 722 (4th Cir. 2010). … See Heck v.

MCI Constructors, Inc. v. Hazen and Sawyer, PC

401 F. Supp. 2d 504 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Nov 25, 2005

Randolph County Board of Education, 268 N.C. 85 , 150 S.E.2d 65 (1966), which involved the appointment of architects as decision makers. … Id.; see also Smith v.

FUJIWARA

District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Mar 3, 2026

v. Brown, 520.U.S. 397, 403 (1997)). Here, the Estate asserts “It|hreadbare recitals of the elements of [its] cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements.” Id. … Brown, 520 U.S. at 409. But the Court does not agree that this is such a case where Canton would apply.

Harrison v. Edison Bros. Apparel Stores, Inc.

814 F. Supp. 457 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Feb 19, 1993

Bohrer v. Hanes Corp., 715 F.2d 213, 216 (5th Cir.1983). … Brown v. Burlington Indus., 93 N.C.App. 431, 436 , 378 S.E.2d 232, 235 (1989); Hogan v. Forsyth Country Club Co., 79 N.C.App. at 491 , 340 S.E.2d at 121 .

NATTY GREENE'S BREWING COMPANY, LLC v. TRAVELER'S CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

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

Kruger v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 102 N.C. App. 788, 790, 403 S.E.2d 571, 572 (1991). V. … Brown v. Ginn, 181 N.C. App. 563, 567, 640 S.E.2d 787, 790 (2007) (“Extrinsic evidence may be consulted when the plain language of the contract is ambiguous.”); see also Turek Enters. v. State Farm Mut. Auto.

Williams v. Currie

103 F. Supp. 2d 858 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jul 5, 2000

See Craig v. … Brown, 456 F.2d 18 (10th Cir.1972) (invalidating law where females receive benefit of juvenile proceedings up to 18 years of age while males limited to 16 years). 4 .

Rowe v. North Carolina Agricultural & Technical State University

630 F. Supp. 2d 601 · District Court, M.D. North Carolina · Jun 10, 2009

Demick v. … See Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 , 148 n. 1, 104 S.Ct. 1723 , 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984) (applying 3-day rule to Title VII case where date of receipt was not pleaded).