Case law

Scott v. Iredell Statesville Schools Board of Education

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 4, 2019

Specifically, Plaintiff brings this suit over 1 The summary of relevant facts recited in this Order are undisputed or clearly supported in the record, as cited by the parties in their memoranda of law. … To establish a failure-to-promote claim under Title VII, a plaintiff must show that she (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) applied for the position in question; (3) was qualified for the position; and (4) was rejected

Youngblood Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States

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

It is provided in 49 U.S.C.A. § 307 that “a certificate shall be issued to any qualified applicant therefor, authorizing the whole or any part of the operations covered by the application, if it is found that the applicant … No party in the instant proceeding controverts the Commission’s duty and authority to establish standards and tests to facilitate its determination of the existence of public convenience and necessity or the lack thereof.

Evans v. Ishee

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 25, 2023

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, 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

Williams v. Richardson

347 F. Supp. 544 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 11, 1972

Plaintiffs do not qualify under (B), because there had been no such ceremony. … In addition even a clearly illegitimate child is deemed a “child” under § 416(h) (3) (C) if: ■ “(i) such insured individual *547 (I) had acknowledged in writing that the applicant is his son or daughter, (II) had been decreed

Griffith

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

Pittman v. Sigmon

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Sep 27, 2022

dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint 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 … 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

Shine v. Wells Fargo

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 23, 2024

Disability Discrimination To establish a claim for disability discrimination in violation of the ADA, plaintiffs must show that “(1) they have a disability; (2) they are otherwise qualified … To establish a prima facie retaliation claim under the ADA, Ms.

Marbury v. Wilerby

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 14, 2019

review 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 … 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

LendingTree, LLC v. Zillow, Inc.

54 F. Supp. 3d 444 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Oct 9, 2014

The Court notes that these two elements are mutually exclusive: Lending- *456 Tree’s loss at trial does not, standing alone, qualify this case as “exceptional.” … The Court offered some examples of instances that might qualify as “exceptional.”

Goodman v. Moose

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 29, 2023

malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune to such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. … 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.

Volvo Trademark Holding Aktiebolaget v. CLM EQUIP. COMPANY, INC.

236 F. Supp. 2d 536 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 13, 2002

To facilitate achieving these goals, one entity needs to have full authority to manage, negotiate, amend, terminate, and establish distributor relationships. … Clearly, any action pursuant to the Arkansas Franchise Practices Act must by definition arise out of the contract.

Darity v. United States

124 F. Supp. 2d 355 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Dec 4, 2000

Clearly, the Court itself considers the Apprendi rule of fundamental constitutional import, resonating its previous decision in Sullivan v. … In Ap-prendi, the Court clearly ruled that every element of a crime must be submitted to a jury.

Viva Healthcare Packaging USA Inc. v. CTL Packaging USA Inc.

197 F. Supp. 3d 837 · District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jul 12, 2016

They also note that Defendants fail to point out how exactly he fails to qualify as an expert under the standards articulated in Fed. R. Ev. 702. … Additionally, for a non-moving party to establish a genuine dispute of material fact as to “no anticipation,” the non-moving party “is required to do more than establish that the experts disagree.”

Cromartie v. North Carolina Department of Public Safety of Prisions

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

To establish an Eighth Amendment claim, an inmate must satisfy both an objective component—that the harm inflicted was sufficiently serious—and subjective component—that the prison official acted with a 3 Defendant … immunity at this time.

Murphy v. Schuller

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Feb 2, 2024

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 … That claim is not clearly frivolous. The Plaintiff also asserts a claim for failure to protect against “Schuller’s co-workers.” [Doc. 1 at 3].

Lineberger v. Price

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Apr 26, 2021

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 … To establish a violation of the Eighth Amendment, an inmate must allege (1) a “sufficiently serious” deprivation under an objective standard and (2) that prison officials acted with “deliberate indifference” to the inmate

Lewis v. Ishee

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Aug 5, 2025

for Habitual Felon status when he did not so qualify. … As a result, the state MAR court’s decision was not contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Pettis v. Jones

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Nov 21, 2023

review 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 … Rather, to establish liability under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendant “acted personally” to cause the alleged violation. See Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977) (citation omitted).

Hunter v. McFadden

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · Mar 16, 2021

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 scenarios. … Rather, to establish liability under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendant “acted personally” to cause the alleged violation. See Vinnedge v. Gibbs, 550 F.2d 926, 928 (4th Cir. 1977) (citation omitted).

Blake v. N.C. Dept of Public Safety / Mountain View CI

District Court, W.D. North Carolina · May 26, 2021

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