Case law

Cope v. United States

222 F. Supp. 596 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 18, 1963

(d) The Commission abused its discretion in denying Cope’s petition for further hearing for the reason that the facts sought to be introduced at a further hearing establish that unrestricted temporary authority operations … The term ‘public interest’ as used in Section 5 clearly embraces the interest of competing carriers. Their interest and that of the general public is the same in preventing uneconomic transportation.

Hyatt v. Town of Lake Lure

314 F. Supp. 2d 562 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 18, 2003

The regulations plainly prohibited any filling of the lake and clearly alerted property owners that the seawall *576 must be constructed at the shoreline. … Because the recommendation is that the claims against Potts be dismissed, the objection filed by the Defendants to the issue of quasi-judicial immunity is moot. F.

McCarthy v. Cardella

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 12, 2019

In its frivolity review, a court must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios. … In addition, a plaintiff must come forward with specific evidence “establish[ing] that but for the retaliatory motive the complained of incident[s] ... would not have occurred.” Woods v.

Minor v. Best Buy Stores, LP

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 4, 2022

Even if the documents Plaintiff seeks to strike were subject to a Rule 12(f) motion, she has not established any basis under law for doing so. … Next, the Court concludes the language of the arbitration clause clearly indicates that all disputes between the parties will be submitted to arbitration. The disputes at issue fall within that broad scope.

Barnett v. Patane

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 13, 2019

In its frivolity review, a court must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios. … In addition, a plaintiff must come forward with specific evidence “establish[ing] that but for the retaliatory motive the complained of incident[s] ... would not have occurred.” Woods v.

Perkins v. Kijakazi

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 15, 2021

Inability to establish and maintain effective relationships…. … Sept. 30, 2015) (collecting cases); see also SSR 96-6p, 1996 WL 374180, at * 2 (July 2, 1996) (state agency consultants “are highly qualified ... physicians and psychologists who are experts in the evaluation of medical

Kimble v. Lassiter

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 11, 2019

determine whether it is subject to dismissal on the grounds that it is “(i) frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … In its frivolity review, a court must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios.

Freeman v. Turner

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 11, 2023

An inmate has a clearly established First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for filing lawsuits. See Booker v. S.C. Dep’t of Corrs., 855 F.3d 533, 540 (4th Cir. 2017); Thompson v. … Moreover, bare or conclusory assertions of retaliation are insufficient to establish a retaliation claim. Id.

Meineke Franchisor SPV, LLC v. Atta

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 20, 2021

Factual Background1 Plaintiff Meineke is a Delaware corporation that grants franchises to qualified individuals, allowing them to own and operate automotive repair businesses … If a court finds that liability is established, it must then determine damages. E.E.O.C. v. Carter Behav. Health Servs., Inc., 2011 WL 5325485, at *4 (E.D.N.C. Oct 7, 2015) (citing Ryan v. Homecomings Fin.

Hemphill v. Huntley

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 14, 2023

Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 75 (4th Cir. 1994) (“the Constitution creates no entitlement to grievance procedures or access to any such procedure voluntarily established by a state”); Booker v. S.C. … To establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendants “acted personally” to cause the alleged violation. See Vinnedge v.

Crowder v. Burress

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 5, 2024

claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune … In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional

Perez v. Morrison

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 10, 2022

The Parratt- Hudson doctrine does not apply, however, to deprivations that are a “result of some established state procedure.” Logan v. … Plaintiff has not established any of the elements that would warrant preliminary injunctive relief.

Haney v. North Carolina Department of Correction

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 7, 2024

In its frivolity review, a court must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios. … To establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendants “acted personally” to cause the alleged violation. See Vinnedge v.

Baxton v. United States

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 16, 2022

A violation of § 843(b) qualifies as an offense involved in dealing a controlled substance which is punishable under any law of the United States pursuant to § 1961(1)(D). See United States v. … The foregoing clearly informed the jury that an “enterprise” and “pattern of racketeering activity” are distinct, must both be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and may be established by overlapping evidence.

Gaston v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 25, 2021

immunity and otherwise had an express permissible purpose under the DPPA. … Finally, the Court decided that Defendants were not entitled to summary judgment because the Court found they were liable for injunctive relief as discussed above and did not have immunity, qualified or otherwise, based

Barnes v. Grant

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

In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional … In doing so, the plaintiff must set forth “specific, non-conclusory factual allegations that establish an improper [discriminatory] motive.” Williams v. Hansen, 326 F.3d 569, 584 (4th Cir. 2003) (quoting Trulock v.

Laschober v. Cochran

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 20, 2024

A plaintiff has “a weighty burden to establish a civil rights conspiracy.” Hinkle, 81 F.3d at 421. … (quoting Hinkle, 81 F.3d at 423).9 9 Considering these rulings, the Court does not reach Defendants’ argument that they are entitled to qualified immunity.

Stout v. Honeycutt

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 1, 2022

In its frivolity review, this Court must determine whether the Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional … To establish a deliberate indifference claim against non-medical personnel, a prisoner must show that the non-medical personnel failed to promptly provide needed medical treatment, deliberately interfered with

Harper v. Schulte

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 31, 2024

On June 28, 2015, Harper qualified as the administrator for Mr. Harper’s estate. [Id.]. Before his death, Mr. Harper lived at 96 McClain Street, Asheville, North Carolina (the “Property”). [Id.]. … “Abuse of discretion occurs if the court’s ‘conclusion is guided by erroneous legal principles . . . or rests upon a clearly erroneous factual finding.’”

Ledford v. Bryson City Police Department

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 12, 2022

Supp. 3d 551, 561 (W.D.N.C. 2020) (“[I]t is well established in this district that ‘a party must generally move to compel a party to comply with a discovery request prior to the close of discovery or the motion … For example, the defendant may seek the records from the plaintiff herself via a document request pursuant to Rule 34.4 3 During the August 12 hearing, Defendants mentioned a “qualified protective order.”