Case law

CF Industries, Inc. v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp.

448 F. Supp. 475 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 27, 1978

The restriction of this clause to cases connoted by the term “gift” is clearly not warranted. See Restatement § 133, comment c. … It is thus immaterial that FCA was to pay for the natural gas supplied by NCNG so long as the intent to “confer a right against the promisor” is established.

Lentz v. Harris

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 18, 2024

Defendants argue that summary judgment should be granted because Defendants did not violate Plaintiff’s First Amendment religious exercise rights and because qualified immunity bars Plaintiff’s claims … immunity.

CMH Manufacturing, Inc. v. Catawba County

994 F. Supp. 697 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 11, 1998

On these facts, the Plaintiffs have not come close to establishing that the Ordinance’s burden on interstate commerce (or even on the Plaintiffs themselves) is “clearly excessive in relation to” its local benefits, that is … Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection To prevail on a substantive due process claim challenging the enactment of zoning ordinances, Plaintiffs must establish that the challenged regulation is “clearly arbitrary and

Wilson v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE, NC

702 F. Supp. 1232 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 21, 1988

Recently, the United States Supreme Court has had several occasions to construe the standards established in Rule 56. In Celotex Corporation v. … Clearly the state and its governmental subdivisions do not have to bargain with the representative, id. at 1077 , and clearly the state may prohibit fire fighters and other municipal employees from engaging in disruptive

Am. Reliable Ins. Co. v. Five Bros. Mortg. Co. & Securing, Inc.

306 F. Supp. 3d 820 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 23, 2018

Where the policy is unambiguous, "[i]t must be presumed the parties intended what the language used clearly expresses, and the [policy] must be construed to mean what on its face it purports to mean." … Reliable does not concede that Five Brothers qualifies as an additional insured, but assumes that it does for purposes of its Motion for Summary Judgment.

Young v. Ishee

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 22, 2022

Defendant Junker is required to hire staff qualified to meet the support group you could meet with. At this time there is no support group; however, Mr. … Baltimore Cnty., Md., 913 F.2d 113, 120 (4th Cir. 1990) (“A serious psychological impairment can qualify as [a serious] medical need.”).

Sanders v. Stanley

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

Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing the prison mailbox rule); Lewis v. Richmond City Police Dep’t, 947 F.2d 733 (4th Cir. 1991) (applying the prison mailbox rule to a § 1983 case). … 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

Young v. Annarino

123 F. Supp. 2d 915 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 21, 2000

Like defamation, a qualified privilege must exist as a defense to the constitutional sibling; otherwise, legitimate governmental interests would be chilled. … the Fourth Circuit held, as follows: We reject defendant’s argument that ... consent was not freely and voluntarily given since it was extended under the pressure of a potential indictment and in return for a promise of immunity

Brown v. Registrar of Deeds For Cleveland County

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 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 … Here, the Plaintiff has failed to make any plausible allegations to establish any of the essential elements of a professional negligence claim.

Lotharp-Crawford v. Mountain View Correctional Institute

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 7, 2022

Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing the prisoner mailbox rule); Lewis v. … 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

Callas v. Trane CAC, Inc.

776 F. Supp. 1117 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 24, 1990

Plaintiffs respond by first arguing that the Virginia Supreme Court, in Featherall, clearly adopted § 388 of the Reinstatement in its entirety. … Clearly, nothing of this sort ever was brought to plaintiffs’ attention before the event.

Bastas v. Mountain View C.I. Mailroom Clerk

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 30, 2024

State Bar Association, the American Bar Association, the “SBI” and Centurion (a nonprofit innocence organization) that he marked “legal mail” were returned to him, because they are not “legal mail” that qualify for free … Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 351 (2d Cir. 2003) (“an isolated incident of mail tampering is usually insufficient to establish a constitutional violation”).

Champion International Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

648 F. Supp. 1390 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 1, 1986

The language of the permit is clearly permissive. … Clearly, Tennessee’s standard is a narrative standard and contains no numerical requirements. However, that fact alone does not establish that the EPA acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

Friday v. Carver

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 17, 2024

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. … 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.

Waldrup v. Wilde

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 28, 2021

In its frivolity review, a court must determine whether the Amended Complaint raises an indisputably meritless legal theory or is founded upon clearly baseless factual contentions, such as fantastic or delusional … The Plaintiff’s request to opt out of the kitchen job appears to qualify as free speech exercise.

Fuller v. Slagle

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

To the extent that the Plaintiff is attempting to assert a claim on behalf of other inmates, he is not qualified to do so. See Myers v. Loudoun Cnty. Pub. … In doing so, the plaintiff must set forth “specific, non- conclusory factual allegations that establish an improper [discriminatory] motive.” Williams v.

Das v. State of NC

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 27, 2023

Here, the Defendant judges are clearly state officers. See N.C. CONST. ART. IV, § 2, 10, 19 (establishing that superior and district court judges are officers of the state); N.C. GEN. … Absolute Judicial Immunity It is well established law that judges have immunity from civil liability for their actions “in the exercise of their judicial functions.”

Johnson v. Lett

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 23, 2023

and identify and dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if it 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 … 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

Hatley v. City of Charlotte

826 F. Supp. 2d 890 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 28, 2011

Clearly, the language “subject to” can reasonably be read to permit the Chief to promote and then seek CSB approval. … Defendant has also argued that a promotion can only be from one established rank to another established rank.

Cason v. Builders Firstsource-Southeast Group, Inc.

159 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 30, 2001

otherwise admissible to establish or refute either Plaintiffs claims or Defendant’s affirmative defenses — on the grounds that the notes are protected by the work product doctrine. … Furthermore, to qualify for protection under the work product doctrine, a lawyer must create the document in anticipation of litigation, that is, “because of the prospect of litigation.” National Union Fire Ins. v.