Case law

Fowler v. Williamson

448 F. Supp. 497 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 2, 1978

Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972).” … See also Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 , 96 S.Ct. 2074 , 48 L.Ed.2d 684 and Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 .

French v. Chosin Few, Inc.

173 F. Supp. 2d 451 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 20, 2001

The president of a corporation can only be granted authority to perform an action by the express provision of the board of directors, the by-laws, or the incorporation documents. Kelly v. … and board of directors.

Wirtz v. National Welders Supply Co.

254 F. Supp. 62 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 20, 1966

Section 152 (13); see also Lummus Co. v. N. L. R. B., 339 F.2d 728 (D.C. Cir. 1964); in Colson Corp. v. N. L. R. … Likewise, in Art Metals Construction Co. v. N. L. R.

The Towers, LLC v. Polk County, North Carolina

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 19, 2026

, Inc. v. … The Middle District of North Carolina in AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. Winston-Salem Zoning Board of Adjustment, 11 F.

Greene v. Swain County Partnership for Health

342 F. Supp. 2d 442 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 6, 2004

of the full Partnership board. … Id., at 735-36, 109 S.Ct. 2702 ; Dennis v.

Justice v. Southern Railway Co.

143 F. Supp. 724 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 9, 1956

Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 339 U.S. 239 , 70 S.Ct. 577 , 94 L.Ed. 795 ; Spires v. Southern Ry. Co., 4 Cir., 204 F.2d 453, 454 . … That the plaintiff's grievances as set forth in his pleadings, is a dispute which is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Railway Adjustment Board.

Youngblood Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States

221 F. Supp. 809 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 16, 1963

Administrative Procedure Act, Section 10 (e) ( 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009 (e) ); Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 340 U.S. 474 , 71 S.Ct. 456 , 95 L.Ed. 456 (1950); State of North Carolina v. … United States v. Pierce Auto Freight Lines, Inc., 327 U.S. 515 , 66 S.Ct. 687 , 90 L.Ed. 821 (1946).

Parnell v. Waldrep

538 F. Supp. 1203 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 20, 1982

This considered failure to take action is the official “position” of the County and the Board of Commissioners, as defined in Monell v. … See, e.g., Nelson v.

Burgess v. Equilink Corp.

652 F. Supp. 1422 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 5, 1987

See Mann v. … Compare Parrish v.

Donmar Enterprises, Inc. v. Southern National Bank

828 F. Supp. 1230 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 29, 1993

New York State Dept. of Social Services v. Dublino, 413 U.S. 405, 417 , 93 S.Ct. 2507, 2515 , 37 L.Ed.2d 688 (1973); White Mountain Apache Tribe v. … Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 , 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986), Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v.

Madvig v. Gaither

461 F. Supp. 2d 398 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 11, 2006

See Beam v. Stewart, 845 A.2d 1040 (Del.2004). … Drilling v. Berman, 589 N.W.2d 503, 509 (Minn.Ct.App.1999).

WM. T. BURNETT & CO., INC. v. Cumulus Fibres, Inc.

825 F. Supp. 734 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 25, 1993

Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) dated May 9, 1990 in the patent interference proceeding styled Troy L. Brooks v. Robert L. Street, Interference No. 101,974. 2. … These were the only claims ripe for consideration and interpretation by the Board.

United States v. Dixon

729 F. Supp. 1113 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 22, 1990

See Texas v. … United States v.

United States v. McLean

547 F. Supp. 9 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 1, 1981

The case of United States v. … Brown v. United States, 263 U.S. 78 , 44 S.Ct. 92 , 68 L.Ed. 171 .

Church v. Home Fashions International, LLC

879 F. Supp. 2d 498 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 19, 2012

Defendant relies on Freeman v. … Brown’s affidavit supports Plaintiffs. (Document No. 28-4).

United States v. Central Motor Lines, Inc.

325 F. Supp. 478 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 15, 1970

V. Four of the six employees referred to above shall immediately be placed on the Regular Two-Man East Board, and two of the six shall be placed on the Regular Two-Man West Board. VI. … further ordered that all defendants, their employees, members and agents be enjoined from interfering with the foregoing order, and that a copy of this order be posted at all of Central’s terminals and on the Union bulletin board

Sherrill V. J. P. Stevens & Co.

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

Brown v. … Rosen v. Public Service Elec. & Gas Co., 477 F.2d 90 (3rd Cir. 1973); Cf. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 , 91 S.Ct. 1267 , 28 L.Ed.2d 554 (1971). 21.

Abernathy v. Schenley Industries, Inc.

420 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 27, 1976

The court has concluded that suit against defendant North Carolina Board of Alcohol Control is barred by the Eleventh Amendment because this, in effect, is a suit against the state. Edelman v. … Defendant Mecklenburg Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control is not entitled to the same immunity, however. Counties, and other political subdivisions, derive no protection from the Eleventh Amendment. Hopkins v.

Shell v. Wall

808 F. Supp. 481 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 6, 1992

See Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 , 10 S.Ct. 504 , 33 L.Ed. 842 (1890); Edelman v. Jordan, 415. U.S. 651, 663-664, 94 S.Ct. 1347, 1355-56 , 39 L.Ed.2d 662 (1974). … See N.C.Gen.Stat. § 108A-3 (1990); Fracaro v. Priddy, 514 F.Supp. 191, 200-201 (M.D.N.C.1981); contra Meares v.

Cope v. United States

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

The Board’s conclusion of the likelihood of diversion of traffic by Cope is a not unreasonable projected judgment peculiarly within the Board’s expert domain. … In deciding a like contention in Ratner v.