Case law

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.

Wheeler v. Goodman

330 F. Supp. 1356 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 11, 1971

Stroud testified that he knew he couldn’t establish probable cause to get a warrant. Clearly then, searching the room without a warrant was not justified. William D. Coleman William D. … It failed to establish that the informer was one qualified to identify either sub *1365 stance; and to say that “information received in the past from this informer has proved to be correct by leading to convictions” hardly

Rivers v. United States

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jan 21, 2025

To establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff “must affirmatively show that the official charged acted personally in the deprivation of [his] rights.” Williamson v. … . § 1983 barred by sovereign immunity of North Carolina).

Morrison v. Miller

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 10, 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. … Plaintiffs ask the Court to set aside pending North Carolina criminal charges as well as established North Carolina convictions.

Brown v. State of North Carolina

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 6, 2022

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing the action was improperly removed, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, improper service of process, lack of personal jurisdiction, various immunities, and failure to state a … Thus, Plaintiff failed to establish proper grounds to remove the state criminal proceeding against him to this Court and it must be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1455(b)(4) (“If it clearly appears on the face of the notice

Eubanks v. Bates

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 17, 2023

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. … When a district court dismisses all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, it “ordinarily dismiss[es] all related state claims.” Artis v. Dist.

Bullock El-Bey v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 29, 2021

The Parratt-Hudson doctrine does not apply, however, to deprivations that are a “result of some established state procedure.” Logan v. … When a district court dismisses all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, it “ordinarily dismiss[es] all related state claims.” Artis v.

French v. Chosin Few, Inc.

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

Certainly, the records of the cases before this Court would qualify under this rule. … In order for the organization to remain viable, this Court granted immunity to each of the interim directors for their actions.

Foster v. Asheville Buncombe Community Christian Ministry

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 24, 2023

While the complaint must be construed liberally, the Court may “pierce the veil of the complaint's factual allegations and dismiss those claims whose factual contentions are clearly baseless,” including such claims that … Additionally, the Plaintiff names the general manager and two directors of ABCCM as defendants; however, individuals are immune from suit under Title VII unless they qualify as an “employer” under the statute

Gorham El v. Honeycutt

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 15, 2024

Retaliation An inmate has a clearly established First Amendment right to be free from retaliation for filing lawsuits. See Booker v. S.C. … More, bare or conclusory assertions of retaliation are insufficient to establish a retaliation claim. Id., 40 F.3d at 74.

Torres v. Dye

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 2, 2022

In its frivolity review, this 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 … When a district court dismisses all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, it “ordinarily dismiss[es] all related state claims.” Artis v.

Moore v. Gaston County Board of Education

357 F. Supp. 1037 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 7, 1973

The First Amendment, however, clearly reflects the charity and the honesty of intelligent men who realized that religion can not be codified by some men for all men; that faith lives always on the edge of doubt; that the … The prohibition against the establishment of reli-. gion must not be thus distorted and,' thwarted. Epperson v.

Hoyle v. United Auto Workers Local Union 5285

444 F. Supp. 2d 467 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 3, 2006

The Plaintiff expressed her concern that although she was the best qualified person for the position, Mr. Marr had chosen someone else because she believed he did not want women in positions of power. … There is clearly no such written authority in this case.

Umlic Consolidated v. Spectrum Financial Services Corporation

665 F. Supp. 2d 528 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 19, 2009

As a result, the IRS threatened to revoke the ESOP’s qualified status as a tax-exempt stock bonus plan retroactively to the plan year beginning January 1,1998. … As an initial matter, the *534 Plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $400,000 and, accordingly, the amount in controversy requirement has clearly been met.

Bartlett v. Miller

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 30, 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 an Eighth Amendment claim, an inmate must satisfy both an objective component–that the harm inflicted was sufficiently serious–and a subjective component–that the prison official acted with a sufficiently

Jackman-Bey

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 20, 2026

The burden is on the “next friend” clearly to establish the propriety of his status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court. Whitmore, 495 U.S. … As mandated by the Supreme Court, “[t]he burden is on the ‘next friend’ clearly to establish the propriety of [her] status and thereby justify the jurisdiction of the court.” Whitmore, 495 U.S. at 164. Ms.

Gries v. Zimmer, Inc.

742 F. Supp. 1309 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 23, 1990

Because of the inventory discrepan *1312 cy, Bristol-Myers subsequently issued a qualified audit and cited numerous operational problems as primary contributing factors in the inventory discrepancy. … The evidence clearly established that as early as June 1986, Davis considered consolidating Patient Care with another of Zimmer’s divisions.

Massie v. Board of Trustees, Haywood Community College

357 F. Supp. 2d 878 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 16, 2005

The application of any exemption under the FLSA is an affirmative defense and the burden of proof rests with the employer to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the employee qualifies for an exemption. … For a motion to amend to be denied for futility, the amendment must be “clearly insufficient or frivolous on its face.” Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co., 785 F.2d 503, 510-11 (4th Cir.1986).

Wemmitt-Pauk v. Beech Mountain Club

140 F. Supp. 2d 571 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 1, 2001

establish two of the required elements of a prima facie case. … As discussed above, the Plaintiffs oum affidavit clearly establishes that the summer program was not a success and that she generally had not performed satisfactorily in the position of Director of Youth Recreation.

Carmona v. Union County Sheriffs Office

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

In doing so, the plaintiff must set forth “specific, non- conclusory factual allegations that establish an improper [discriminatory] motive.” Williams v. … When a district court dismisses all claims independently qualifying for the exercise of federal jurisdiction, it “ordinarily dismiss[es] all related state claims.” Artis v.