Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,198 results
0.88s
16 F. 765 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 15, 1883
Law J. 259 ,) very clearly defined his views as to the powers and duties of grand juries in the federal courts. … When he comes into a court of justice as a witness he is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of other witnesses; nothing more and nothing less.
Cited 39 timesPublished73 F. Supp. 2d 589 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 25, 1999
Under clearly established North Carolina law, unless an employment contract expressly states a specific term, employment is terminable at the will of either party. See generally Coman v. … ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of ' any State ... subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
Cited 13 timesPublished210 F.R.D. 180 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 8, 2000
Ledford did not qualify for a PCPO pension. The fact that Mr. Ledford qualified for PCPO three years later at a different facility does not establish that GE acted with a specific intent to interfere with Mr. … First, as clearly required by Fourth Circuit precedent, Plaintiffs failed to establish: (1) a meritorious defense; (2) misconduct by clear and convincing evidence; and (3) that the misconduct prevented the moving party from
Cited 11 timesPublishedCapacchione ex rel. Capacchione v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
190 F.R.D. 170 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 15, 1999
The Board and Swann Plaintiffs failed to establish that the potential harm from such changes would be irreparable. The extent of the “harm” is ultimately in the hands of the Board and CMS. … As set forth at length in the Order, however, this “immunity” has its limits in that one “cannot enjoy immunity for ultra vires acts — that is, acts that are beyond the scope of the Court’s mandate and that are not otherwise
Cited 3 timesPublished89 F. Supp. 2d 687 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 22, 1999
The Court takes judicial notice of prior proceedings in this District because the complaint clearly refers to those cases and they are related to this one. Owens v. … The judges are alleged to have conspired to dismiss their actions as frivolous and have established a pattern of failing to address issues raised by pro se litigants.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 17, 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. … Counties and 3 municipalities are political subdivisions of a state that can qualify as a “person” under Section 1983. See, e.g., Pembaur v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown926 F. Supp. 2d 739 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 25, 2013
While the Government may have established that the Petitioners were induced to part with their money as a result of the Defendant’s misrepresentations regarding his status as a qualified intermediary, the Government has not … Clearly, the proceeds used to purchase the truck continued to constitute the proceeds of the defendant’s crime.
Cited 3 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 6, 2021
Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably … “To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the court must examine (1) whether the plaintiff has demonstrated that the officer violated a constitutional right and (2) whether that right was clearly
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 26, 2022
“Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe that their actions were lawful.” Henry v. … was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownHampton-Bey v. Blowing Rock Police Department
District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 6, 2023
Therefore, both defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. 2 Moreover, Officer Hayes would be entitled to qualified immunity … because his conduct was not “clearly proscribed” by preexisting law.
Cited 0 timesUnknownGuthrie v. Blue Ridge Savings Bank
159 F. Supp. 2d 903 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 4, 2000
Establishing a Prima Facie Case Plaintiff clearly has alleged and proved the first and third elements of a prima facie case. … Unsupported allegations “do not confer talismanic immunity from Rule 56.” Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355, 365 (4th Cir.1985).
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 7, 2022
Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects officers who commit constitutional violations but who, in light of clearly established law, could reasonably believe … “To determine whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity, the court must examine (1) whether the plaintiff has demonstrated that the officer violated a constitutional right and (2) whether that right was clearly
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 6, 2022
immunity. … The initial “threshold question” on a qualified immunity defense is whether “the facts alleged show that [the public official’s] conduct violated a constitutional right.” Bennett v. Monette, 507 F.
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 9, 2022
a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see 28 U.S.C. … Vague allegations and those that the Court cannot clearly attribute to any Defendant(s) will not be separately discussed.
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States v. City of Charlotte, NC
904 F. Supp. 482 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 2, 1995
Second, the statute prohibits a public entity from subjecting a qualified individual to discrimination. … Taylor has clearly alleged that it has been discriminated against because of its potential tenants’ disability.
Cited 9 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 1, 2021
Notwithstanding all of the foregoing, the Defendants’ argue they are entitled to qualified immunity. [Doc. 73 at 18-19]. They are not. … Qualified immunity shields “government officials performing discretionary functions … from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 3, 2024
Because the July 6, 2021 write-up that qualified Plaintiff for the RDU had been dismissed, however, Plaintiff no longer qualified for RDU. [Id.]. … 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
Cited 0 timesUnknown920 F. Supp. 675 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 12, 1996
Rather “the language, context, and history of § 924(e)(1) indicate that the Government must show active employment of the firearm” to establish “use.” Id. … Such possession clearly would not qualify as “carrying.” Likewise, this reading of “carry” is not “of such breadth that no role remains for” the word “use.” Cf. Bailey at -, 116 S.Ct. at 507 .
Cited 3 timesPublishedPayne v. Federal Land Bank of Columbia
711 F. Supp. 851 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 17, 1989
Such notice shall contain the minimum amount, if any, required to qualify a bid as acceptable to the institution and any terms and conditions to which such sale or lease will be subject. (2) Priority If two or more qualified … “If two or more qualified bids in the same amount are received ... the institution shall accept the offer by the previous owner.”
Cited 4 timesPublishedDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 19, 2021
The 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. Neitzke v. … To establish a case of disparate treatment, a plaintiff must show: (1) membership in a protected class; (2) satisfactory work performance; (3) adverse employment action; and (4) different treatment from similarly situated
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna