Case law

United States v. Kelly

917 F. Supp. 2d 553 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 7, 2013

This, in and of itself, proves problematic for determining, under the cate *557 gorical approach, whether the conviction qualifies as the predicate offense under § 922(g)(9). … The recognition of this conviction as a “crime of violence” under Article 14 of the North Carolina General Statutes, is highly persuasive but minimally insufficient standing alone to establish a “misdemeanor crime of domestic

Araya v. Deep Dive Media, LLC

966 F. Supp. 2d 582 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 20, 2013

New York Times, as the Supreme Court later established quite clearly, is applicable only when the victim is allegedly libeled in his or her “official capacity.” Id. at 273 , 84 S.Ct. 710 ; see also Gertz v. … Instead, it is clearly established under North Carolina precedent that “medical care and expense” are included in special damages. Tallent v. Blake, 57 N.C.App. 249 , 291 S.E.2d 336, 340-41 (1982).

Tillman

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 21, 2026

“As a sovereign, the United States is immune from all suits against it absent an express waiver of its immunity.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941); see also F.D.I.C. v. … As the first element above suggests, the Plaintiff must also establish all of the elements of negligence to satisfy the first element of an NIED claim. See Thomas v. Weddle, 605 S.E.2d 244, 249 (N.C. Ct.

Wright v. Beard

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 4, 2023

As a pro se inmate, the Plaintiff is not qualified to prosecute a class action or assert a claim on behalf of others. See Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Pub. … Judges are immune from suit under the doctrine of judicial immunity. See Stump v.

JAMIE CHRISTOPHER MCKINNEY v. DANIEL DALE, et al.

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 14, 2026

because they are entitled to qualified immunity. [Doc. 23]. … Moreover, because the forecast of evidence does not support that a constitutional right was violated, Defendants would also be protected by qualified immunity. See E.W. ex rel. T.W. v.

Hampton v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education

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

. § 115C-42), and Plaintiff failed to allege waiver of immunity by the purchase of insurance. (Doc. No. 13). … Here, Plaintiff’s multiple panic attacks, trips to the emergency room, and on-going psychiatric care clearly establish that she endured her situation with “intense anxiety.”

United States ex rel. Coates v. Laird

358 F. Supp. 214 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 30, 1973

qualifies for the exemption.” 380 U.S. at 166 , 85 S.Ct. at 854 . … Under this analysis the respondents were clearly required to set out reasons for their decision, and the issue decided in United States v.

Ward v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.

830 F. Supp. 2d 102 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 9, 2011

CONCLUSION Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the Court finds that Family Dollar has satisfied the DOL regulations, thereby establishing that Gazra qualifies as an exempt executive under … Section 541.1(f) states clearly, however, that an employee who is compensated for his or her services on a salary basis of at least $250 per week and who satisfies the tests promulgated by sections 541.1(a)-(b) shall be deemed

Rogers v. Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department

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

Ct. 441 (1908), and because Plaintiff alleged that the charges against him resulting from the stop were dropped, Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint survived initial review as not clearly frivolous. [Doc. 14]. … Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred by Heck, that Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity, and that Plaintiff’s official capacity claims fail 9 Defendants’ motion, however, relates

Sanchez-Trujillo v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

632 F. Supp. 1546 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 21, 1986

He established his residence in California. (7) Sanchez returned to Colombia to visit the Plaintiff in 1966, 1969, and 1972. … 1153 (a)(2), an immigrant must first qualify as a “child” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101 (b)(1)(C).

Williams v. Floyde

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 14, 2024

However, judges are immune from suit under the doctrine of judicial immunity. See Stump v. … To establish an individual capacity claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendants “acted personally” to cause the alleged violation. See Vinnedge v.

Hyatt v. Heckler

586 F. Supp. 1154 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 8, 1984

common law ____” The EAJA [further] provides that, unless otherwise provided by statute, a prevailing party in a case brought by or against the United States is entitled to fees, expenses and costs unless the United States establishes … Plaintiffs are clearly prevailing parties in this litigation. Just as clearly, the EAJA may apply to actions of the Secretary for Health and Human Services. *1156 See Guthrie v. Schweiker, 718 F.2d 104 (4th Cir.1983).

In Re Simonini

282 B.R. 604 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 8, 2002

BCDU is a governmental unit, clearly contemplated to be an “entity” subject to the stay under 101(15). … The Court notes as a preliminary matter that the sovereign immunity contention is meritless under Ex Parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 , 28 S.Ct. 441 , 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908).

Educational Credit Management Corp. v. Waterhouse

333 B.R. 103 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 7, 2005

Appellee argues that both are “clearly erroneous finding[s] of fact.” Id., at 14. … Congress clearly established the requirements of § 523(a)(8) so as to make discharge of student loan debt the exception and not the rule.

Gaddy v. Alexander Correction Institution

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 26, 2024

In its frivolity review, this 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. … To establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendants “acted personally” to cause the alleged violation. See Vinnedge v.

Kilpatrick v. Anderson

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 28, 2022

Nor has he alleged any facts that would plausibly establish that his alleged injury was the result of any deficient CCSO policy or custom. … Waco, 502 U.S. 9 (1991) (discussing judicial immunity); Imbler v.

Safe Flight Instrument Corp. v. Stencel Aero Engineering Corp.

323 F. Supp. 279 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 4, 1970

Plaintiff and defendant agree that the facts developed in the depositions, exhibits, and affidavits in the Patent Office and in this Court, clearly establish the material facts of the controversy and are undisputed. … The court held that COMSAT has established a secondary meaning that qualifies it for protection. The facts of the case at bar do not entitle the plaintiff to come under the umbrella of the COMSAT case.

Bumgardner-Lockamy v. Logan

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 22, 2023

These allegations are too vague and conclusory to plausibly allege that the Plaintiff3 3 To the extent that the Plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim on behalf of his foster brother, he is not qualified to do so … Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351 (2d Cir. 2003) (“an isolated incident of mail tampering is usually insufficient to establish a constitutional violation.”). His conclusory claim that the legal 4 Hudson v.

Mom N Pops, Inc. v. City of Charlotte

979 F. Supp. 372 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 22, 1997

None of the circumstances qualifying as an established exception to the doctrine of prior restraint was present. ... … Id. at 1581 (“Clearly, if the regulating authority cannot determine the establishments which are subject to its authority, the establishments themselves cannot be expected to determine whether they need to be licensed or

Moore v. Lassiter

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 7, 2021

In its frivolity review, the 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 … Allegations of inadvertent failure to provide adequate medical care or of negligent diagnosis fail to establish the requisite state of mind. Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 297 (1991).