Case law

Snyder v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 9, 2024

Further, the ALJ clearly and thoroughly explains his reasoning behind the limitations he provided in the RFC. … Snyder's IBD qualified as a severe impairment at step two of the SEP but did not warrant specific restrictions in the RFC. In Ms.

Sparrow v. Goodman

361 F. Supp. 566 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 31, 1973

Nevertheless, a statute such as this one, which makes criminal a form of pure speech, must be interpreted with the commands of the First Amendment clearly in mind. … The expertise of those entrusted with the protection of the President does not qualify them to resolve First Amendment issues, the traditional province of the judiciary.

SuperGuide Corp. v. DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, INC.

211 F. Supp. 2d 725 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 2, 2002

Digital data modulated .onto a carrier wave is more immune to noise because it consists of “l”s and “0”s rather than a time varying analog waveform. … Thus, she claims these signals qualify as “regularly received television signals.”

Design Gaps, Inc. v. Hall

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 21, 2023

Courts have established a two-prong test to determine whether a claim is preempted by the Copyright Act. … North Carolina state courts are uniquely qualified to determine this issue.

Honeywell International Inc. v. OPTO Electronics Co., Ltd.

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 20, 2023

two-dimensional barcode symbology defined by one or more standards settings organizations such as the International Organization for Standardization …” – should be construed as providing a partial definition of what qualifies … Taylor’s proposed testimony,16 as it is clearly outside the bounds of permissible “legal” testimony, notwithstanding the “complexity” of the Agreement at issue.

Walker v. Wilkie

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 30, 2020

Dep’t of Veteran Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 96 (1990), as “[p]rocedural requirements established by Congress for gaining access to the federal courts are not to be disregarded by courts out of a vague sympathy for particular … Plaintiff clearly missed the 15-day deadline required by statute. Plaintiff was sent a notice of his right to file a formal complaint on Dec 4, 2018 and received it on Dec 5, 2018. (Doc. No. 1, p. 8).

McRae v. Niagara Bottling

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 10, 2021

4 At this stage, the Court was conducting only a “frivolity” review, which requires the Court to determine whether the complaint raised an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly … The NC Department of Commerce’s decision determining that Plaintiff qualifies for unemployment benefits, which is attached to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, does not make Plaintiff’s claims of discrimination plausible

Brown v. SunTrust Bank

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 23, 2020

Clearly, Plaintiff was able to obtain vital information supporting his claim within the established limitations period. As such, equitable tolling does not apply. … Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Tolling Doctrines Finally, this Court holds that neither claim for breach of fiduciary duty qualifies for tolling.

Worley Claims Services, LLC v. Jefferies

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

The parties dispute, with respect to one or more companies, whether they qualify as a “customer” and whether defendants’ activities constitute direct or indirect solicitation. … However, paragraph 14 of the Retention Agreement clearly states that the “[a]greement may be modified only in writing by a duly authorized officer.”

City of Brevard, North Carolina v. HCA Healthcare, Inc.

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 21, 2024

“Ordinarily, a defense based on the statute of limitations must be raised by the defendant through an affirmative defense, and the burden of establishing the affirmative defense rests on the defendant.” … The facts necessary to determine whether the Plaintiffs’ claims against the Mission Defendants are time-barred do not “clearly appear[ ] on the face of the complaint.”

Orr v. U.S. EPA

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 15, 2020

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint fails to establish any causal connection between an alleged injury to him and Defendants’ use of herbicide. … Thus, the lone allegation that Plaintiff found two dead bees in the same four- to five-week time period as FRBEMC’s spraying 1s clearly insufficient to fairly trace any purported injury to Plaintiff to Defendants’ conduct

Ospina v. Piedra

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 11, 2021

Clearly, there are factual disputes as to what the contract required – although Griesinger suggests that it “agreed only to ‘assist’ Plaintiff and ‘facilitate[]’ a potential sale” (Document No. 16, p. 10), Plaintiff is … “A simple breach of contract does not qualify as an unfair or deceptive act; instead, a plaintiff must allege ‘some type of egregious or aggravating circumstances before the [UDTPA] applies.’”