Case law

Bostic v. Wall

588 F. Supp. 994 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 7, 1984

The charge clearly names “Mecklenburg County” as a charged party. The County was on notice of the Plaintiff’s charge and participated in the EEOC conciliatory efforts. … The Plaintiff, in a wrongful transfer action, may establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas model by showing that: (1) he was a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position

Maye v. Mckinney

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 6, 2023

In its frivolity review, a court must determine whether a complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional … He also appears to again seek relief on behalf of others which he is not qualified to do. [Id. at 4].

Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Seretta Constr. Mid-Atlantic, LLC

333 F. Supp. 3d 540 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 6, 2018

Specifically, the estate contends that since the word "injured" is neither defined nor qualified in subparagraph (3), it can be interpreted to include property damage as well as bodily injury. … As noted by the Supreme Court of North Carolina, "ambiguity in the terms of an insurance policy is not established by the mere fact that [a party] makes a claim based on a construction of its language which the company asserts

Bourger v. Eaton Corp.

114 F. Supp. 2d 412 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 7, 2000

The inability to work with others is clearly a valid reason for job termination. Id., at 280. … Unsupported allegations “do not confer talismanic immunity from Rule 56.” Ross v. Communications Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355, at 365 (4th Cir.1985).

Lynch v. Snepp

350 F. Supp. 1134 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 20, 1972

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the “supreme law of the land,” provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ; or abridging … It is clearly unconstitutional to enable a public official to determine which expressions of view will be permitted and which will not or to engage in invidious discrimination among persons or groups either by use of a statute

Powles v. Kandrasiewicz

886 F. Supp. 1261 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 23, 1995

Davis clearly represents well settled law that whether “one acting in a representative capacity ... … Clearly, the judgment must first be valid and enforceable in the rendering state.

Dale v. Hammonds

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 26, 2023

In its frivolity review, a court must determine whether a complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios. … of Columbia, 138 S.Ct. 594, 595 (2018) (when a district court dismisses all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, it “ordinarily dismiss[es] all related state claims.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1367

Akers Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States

352 F. Supp. 606 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 2, 1973

The record establishes that Malone is able, financially and otherwise, to conduct the operations here proposed. … ORDER The evidence clearly demonstrates the ability and competence of. Malone to service the routes in controversy.

Frisbee v. Buncombe County Detention Facility

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 6, 2023

Frisbee was “very clearly intoxicated” during the booking process at that BCDF and, at some point, she admitted that she had swallowed drugs. … Thus, “[t]o have standing to bring this Section 1983 action, which is in the nature of a wrongful death action, plaintiff must first be qualified and appointed under North Carolina law as the administrat[or]

Keziah v. W.M. Brown & Son, Inc.

683 F. Supp. 542 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 6, 1988

Plaintiff presents only her own affidavit to contradict Defendant’s claim that Dohn was better qualified than she. … Defendant’s regional manager’s opinion that Dohn was very well qualified remains unassailed.

Reynolds v. United States

805 F. Supp. 336 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 30, 1992

King, an engineering professor since 1967, was also qualified by the court as an expert witness in the field of accident reconstruction. Although Dr. … On such evidence, the plaintiff has clearly failed to carry her burden of proof, and her claim against the United States must fail. IV.

McClary v. Kalinski

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 21, 2019

Qualified Immunity Dr. … cannot establish any constitutional violation.

McClary v. Butler

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 9, 2021

that he did not sexually assault the Plaintiff on May 18, 2018, and the video footage supports this fact; and that qualified immunity bars Plaintiff’s individual capacity claim. … established before the subject incident, Defendant is not entitled to the defense of qualified immunity on Plaintiff’s claim.

Hopper v. McFadden

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

The Court will allow Plaintiff’s individual capacity claims against Defendants LeBliss and Walton to proceed on initial review as not clearly frivolous. … To establish a violation of the ADA, Plaintiff must show that: (1) he was a qualified individual with a disability, (2) he was discriminated against, excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of

Puranda v. City of Charlotte

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 10, 2024

While Plaintiff’s briefing states, “Although Defendants argue that all Defendants are entitled to public official and qualified immunity,” the Defendants, in fact, do not argue for public official or qualified immunity … McGraw, 125 F.3d 222, 226 (4th Cir. 1997) (declining to consider qualified immunity defense not squarely before the district court and noting “we have refused to consider sua sponte a defense of qualified immunity in a

Blackwell v. Palmer

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

Counsel further noted the existence of various defenses that could be asserted by the Defendants at both the summary judgment stage and at trial, including the defenses of qualified immunity and public official immunity … Additionally, defense counsel noted the availability of the defenses of qualified immunity and public official immunity.

Womble

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 9, 2026

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. … 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

Walker v. Hilton at University Place

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 16, 2024

Other employees in the same job who are substantially younger than the Plaintiff were rehired, but the Plaintiff was not rehired for his former position or for other open positions for which he was qualified. … In its frivolity review, a court must determine whether a complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional scenarios.

Sherrill V. J. P. Stevens & Co.

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.

Womble

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

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 … 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.”); 28 U.S.C