Case law

Evans v. Forest River, Inc.

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 10, 2020

Defendant further contends that because the Warranty Act does not apply, Plaintiffs do not qualify for a refund or treble damages under the statute. … Such language most clearly indicates the weight of the vehicle itself, and not how much weight the vehicle can bear.

Sherrill v. JP Stevens and Co., Inc.

410 F. Supp. 770 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 11, 1975

The evidence establishes that the plaintiff was qualified and had the potential which warranted his consideration for a supervisory position. … The evidence clearly establishes that black employees were totally excluded from production jobs until 1963, shop or maintenance jobs until 1974, and are still excluded from office, clerical and supervisory positions.

Maillet v. United States

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 20, 2020

This Court also determined that the Petitioner’s prior conviction for indecent assault and battery on a child was not a qualifying offense, so the enhanced mandatory minimum did not apply. [Id. at 18-20]. … Courts ordinarily find ineffective assistance for failure to raise claims on appeal only when “ignored issues are clearly stronger than those presented.” Smith v.

Young v. Ishee

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 24, 2022

and identify and dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it 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 … “To establish that a health care provider’s actions constitute deliberate indifference to a serious medical need, the treatment must be so grossly incompetent, inadequate, or excessive as to shock the conscience or

Curtain v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 27, 2023

SUBSTAINTIAL GAINFUL ACTIVITY Claimant next argues the ALJ misapplied the regulations governing whether Claimant’s self-employment income qualified as substantial gainful activity … In reaching this conclusion, the ALJ clearly stated Claimant’s work as the owner of a bar for seven years after the alleged onset of disability “satisfies the comparability of work activity test for constituting substantial

United States v. Godley

136 F. Supp. 3d 724 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 30, 2015

The record establishes, the parties agree, and/or the parties do not dispute the following. Fred O. Godley (“Decedent”) was married to Martha Godley. … Accordingly, there is a five-year deferral of the first payment of qualifying, tax; however, the estate must,pay interest on the deferred tax for years one through four.

ME Ex Rel. CE v. BOARD OF EDUC. FOR BUNCOMBE

186 F. Supp. 2d 630 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 11, 2002

A follow-up meeting was set for June 1997 at which time it was determined CE no longer qualified for special education services and he was removed from the program. Id. … This accurately establishes that reimbursement is not at issue for that school year during which the child had not yet been evaluated by the County. [5] "[C]ourts have held uniformly that reimbursement is barred where parents

Triad Packaging, Inc. v. SupplyOne, Inc.

925 F. Supp. 2d 774 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 19, 2013

However, after explaining that in some instances it is beneficial for the customer to simply place a new order with SupplyOne for a lower price, Hammer’s cooperation is qualified with the following statement: “I do not feel … While the entities were related, both TPI and DBC had their own established customer bases and sales staffs. (Pis.' Mem. In Opp'n, at 5).

Hale v. United States

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 22, 2020

He further argues that these witnesses provided expert testimony without having been qualified as experts. … Petitioner claims that requiring these witnesses to qualify as experts may have prevented them from giving some of their testimony.

Bailey

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 2, 2026

As Plaintiff was previously advised, to establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff “must affirmatively show that the official charged acted personally in the deprivation of [his] rights.” … Of Columbia, 583 U.S. 71, 74 (2018) (When a district court dismisses all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, it “ordinarily dismiss[es] as well all related state claims.”)

Ramsey Group, Inc. v. EGS International, Inc.

329 F. Supp. 2d 630 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 22, 2004

I picked these terms in an attempt to let you know this is not a “qualified maybe.”... Our company carries a significant level of business liability insurance in an attempt to be a responsible corporate citizen. … Where the advertisement is literally false, a violation may be established without evidence of consumer deception.... [A] court may find on its own that a statement is literally false[.]

Grady v. Rogers

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 20, 2022

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 … When a district court dismisses all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, it “ordinarily dismiss[es] all related state claims.” Artis v. Dist.

Lanier v. Wycoff

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 3, 2022

Bare or conclusory assertions of retaliation are insufficient to establish a retaliation claim. Adams v. Rice, 40 F.3d 72, 74 (4th Cir. 1994). … The Parratt-Hudson doctrine does not apply, however, to deprivations that are a “result of some established state procedure.” Logan v.

Frye v. Lee

89 F. Supp. 2d 693 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 9, 2000

However, he never lived with either parent long enough to establish bonding. Id. … “Qualified jurors need not ... be totally ignorant of the facts and issues involved....

Hunter v. Buchholtz

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 28, 2025

On May 2, 2023, the IGRB upheld Central Prison authorities’ decision that Plaintiff does not qualify “for ADA and the rehabilitative services are not mandatory conditions of confinement for Plaintiff … A party may assert the defense of res judicata in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion “only if it clearly appears on the face of the complaint.” Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. Co. v.

Nolan

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 1, 2026

This principle only applies, however, if all facts necessary to the affirmative defense ‘clearly appear[ ] on the face of the complaint.’” (quoting Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R. v. … Under ERISA, every “employee benefit plan shall be established and maintained” under “a written instrument.” 29 U.S.C. § 1102(a)(1).

Washington v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 26, 2022

The ALJ clearly sought and considered updated records related to school performance and any new or changing cognitive impairment. … As the ALJ’s decision clearly shows, he considered S.M.H.’s testimony and explained how his and his mother’s testimony factored into his findings.

Heaggans v. Saul

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 20, 2022

“Substantial evidence has been defined as ‘more than a scintilla and [it] must do more than create a suspicion of the existence of a fact to be established. … An impairment that manifests only some of those criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (1990).

McGinn v. Saul

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 20, 2020

Id. 2 The determination at the second step as to whether an impairment is “severe” under the regulations is a de minimis test, intended to weed out clearly unmeritorious claims at an … Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that her “qualified daily activities illustrate the ongoing difficulties that she experiences in using her dominant right hand.” Id. at 7.

US Foods, Inc. v. White Oak Manor - Charlotte, Inc.

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 6, 2021

Prior to the incident at issue in this lawsuit, the parties had established a business relationship under which US Food provided food supply services to its customer White Oak. … Because the clause refers to ‘Customer’s acts,” Defendants argue that the language is qualified and does not clearly cover injury based on Plaintiff’s own negligence.