Harold Brent McKnight

The case concerned pretrial detention for a defendant charged as a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). After the defendant pleaded guilty only to the ammunition charge, a magistrate judge ordered release on a $25,000 unsecured bond. The government appealed, arguing there were no changed circumstances and that a statutory presumption of detention applied. The district court conducted a de novo review and upheld the release, finding that the plea agreement, successful mental health treatment for the defendant's schizophrenia, and family support constituted changed circumstances that rebutted the presumption by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant posed no flight risk or danger to the community.

criminal lawprocedureguns

In Kling v. Harris Teeter Inc., plaintiff Christine Kling sued the grocery store chain and a police officer after she was arrested on a larceny warrant stemming from a check-cashing incident at the store; her daughter-in-law Cynthia Kling joined as a co-plaintiff on some claims. The store's register flagged the check due to Kling's prior returned checks, leading staff to call police after she left without completing the transaction; the arrest occurred because of a name confusion with another customer, Christine King, but charges were later dropped and expunged. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on all eight claims, including defamation, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and civil rights violations. It reasoned that probable cause supported the warrant, the restraint was lawful, and plaintiffs failed to establish the required elements for each tort or constitutional claim under North Carolina and federal law.

criminal lawcivil rightsproceduretorts & liability

Priscilla Johnson, the first Black female firefighter eligible for promotion to Fire Captain in the Charlotte Fire Department, sued the City of Charlotte alleging race and gender discrimination under Title VII after she was passed over for a 1999 promotion in favor of a white male with an identical score. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Johnson had established a prima facie case of discrimination and that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the city's stated reasons were pretextual. The core reasoning focused on evidence that the department deviated from its established practice of promoting tied candidates sequentially by hire date, combined with the chief's discretionary selection of other relevant factors that had not been used in prior promotions.

civil rightslabor & employment

In this consolidated securities fraud class action, plaintiffs alleged that First Union and its officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act by misrepresenting the success of integrating acquisitions like CoreStates and by violating GAAP accounting rules, which inflated stock prices until a May 1999 earnings announcement caused a sharp drop. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that plaintiffs failed to meet the heightened pleading standards for scienter and falsity. The directors' stock sales were deemed not suspicious because they retained or increased their holdings overall, identified statements were either non-actionable puffery, protected forward-looking statements under the PSLRA safe harbor, or not shown to be false when made, and GAAP claims lacked particularity.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This patent case concerned whether Cabot was entitled to attorneys' fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. § 285 on the grounds that Solution Technology, Inc. (STI) had engaged in willful infringement and litigation misconduct in connection with chemical mechanical planarization slurries using fumed alumina. Following a bench trial and review of extensive evidence regarding STI's development, testing, prior sales to customers like IBM, and communications with counsel, the court concluded that the case did not qualify as exceptional. The magistrate judge found that STI's actions, including its reliance on legal opinions and the characteristics of its products, did not satisfy the standards for willfulness or misconduct that would justify fee-shifting. Accordingly, the court denied Cabot's request for attorneys' fees.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves consolidated securities fraud class actions filed against First Union Corporation and its executives under federal securities laws. After competing groups of plaintiffs sought appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of their chosen counsel under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the parties stipulated to appoint both groups as co-lead plaintiffs with multiple law firms as co-lead and liaison counsel. The court approved the stipulation, finding that the combined group satisfied the Reform Act's criteria for the most adequate plaintiff based on financial interest and Rule 23 requirements, and that the agreement resolved the competition without violating the statute's purposes. Defendants' objections to aggregating unrelated plaintiffs were considered but rejected as insufficient to rebut the presumption favoring the stipulated arrangement. The court also enforced the original scheduling order and declined to impose special service requirements.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involves a dispute over the rescission of a reinstated disability insurance policy issued by Paul Revere Life Insurance Company to Kenneth Forester. Forester had failed to pay premiums on Policy A, leading to cancellation, and when applying for reinstatement he denied any recent medical treatment or impairments despite receiving treatment for depression and taking medication. Revere sought a declaratory judgment upholding its rescission of the reinstated policy after discovering the misrepresentations on the application, while Forester argued the policy never lapsed due to a waiver of premium provision for disability and raised counterclaims. The court granted Revere summary judgment on its declaratory judgment claim and Forester's first and second counterclaims, finding the misrepresentations justified rescission, while partially granting Forester's motions to amend and for partial summary judgment on issues like premium refunds.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved two groups of plaintiffs, mostly African-American minors and adults, who alleged that employees at two North Carolina Pizza Hut restaurants owned by the defendant subjected them to inferior service based on race, including requiring prepayment, delays in seating and ordering, and other differential treatment compared to white customers. The plaintiffs brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for interference with the right to make and enforce contracts and under 42 U.S.C. § 2000a for denial of equal enjoyment of public accommodations. The court addressed the defendant's motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Applying the governing standard, the court held that a complaint may not be dismissed unless it is clear beyond doubt that the plaintiffs can prove no set of facts entitling them to relief, with all allegations taken as true and construed favorably to the plaintiffs. The court proceeded to analyze the sufficiency of the § 1981 allegations in light of that standard.

civil rightsprocedure

The case involved a dispute over $45,000 in additional life insurance benefits under a group policy issued by UNUM to Cedalion Systems, Inc. Plaintiff Dignity Viatical Settlement Partners, as assignee of the policy benefits from the deceased insured George Rigsby, sought payment after Rigsby's death from AIDS, but UNUM had paid only the original $40,000 coverage and denied the rest upon discovering Rigsby's material misrepresentations about his health in the 1992 application for increased coverage. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment to UNUM, holding that the policy's incontestability clause did not bar the insurer from contesting the additional coverage because it was obtained through false statements on the application, and distinguishing prior precedent on policy reinstatement or supplements.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff who sued a debt collection company and its employee under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and North Carolina law after the employee called the plaintiff's neighbor, gave his name and number, and described the matter as 'very important,' without conveying details of the underlying credit card debt. The defendants moved to dismiss, contending that the call did not qualify as a prohibited communication because it revealed no information about the debt and was not an improper third-party contact. The court denied the motion to dismiss, holding that the FDCPA broadly bars debt collectors from communicating with third parties in connection with debt collection except in narrow circumstances such as obtaining location information, and that the allegations sufficiently stated a claim under both federal and state statutes. The court also denied the individual defendant's separate motion to dismiss for lack of service as premature since the time for service had not yet expired.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved Vanwyk Textile Systems' claims against Zimmer Machinery for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the Lanham Act arising from a business relationship in textile machinery sales, including allegations of passing off equipment as Vanwyk's. After a jury verdict in Vanwyk's favor, the court considered Zimmer's renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial, as well as related requests on attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest. The court denied the motions for judgment as a matter of law and new trial, finding sufficient evidence to support the verdict under the applicable standards that require viewing evidence favorably to the non-movant and that a new trial is warranted only if the verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or results in a miscarriage of justice. It also determined the proper calculation of prejudgment and postjudgment interest on the damages awarded, including adjustments to avoid double recovery on certain claims.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Mom N Pops, Inc., seeking a preliminary injunction to bar the City of Charlotte from enforcing business license, zoning approval, and City Code § 12.522 requirements before the plaintiff could open an adult establishment at 5920 South Boulevard. The court denied the motion in full after applying the Fourth Circuit's four-factor hardship balancing test from Blackwelder and Manning v. Hunt. It weighed the plaintiff's claimed irreparable harm to speech rights against the city's interests, assessed the likelihood of success on the merits under precedents such as Renton and Young v. American Mini Theatres that permit zoning to address secondary effects, and considered the public interest, concluding the plaintiff failed to carry its burden on any factor.

free speechbusiness & regulatory

In Andrews v. Crump, the plaintiffs sued law enforcement officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law after officers conducted surveillance and arrests during a controlled marijuana delivery on the plaintiffs' farm in 1992, later filing tax liens related to the incident. The court considered the defendants' motion for summary judgment on grounds including qualified immunity. It concluded that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims because the law was not clearly established that their actions, such as filing tax liens, constituted unreasonable seizures under the Fourth Amendment, and a reasonable officer could have believed the conduct was lawful. As a result, the court granted summary judgment on the § 1983 claims, which formed the basis of federal jurisdiction, and dismissed the state law claims without prejudice.

criminal lawcivil rightstaxesprocedure

In this case, plaintiff Honeycutt sued tour operators GOGO Tours, Mann Travels, and ground handler Tour Carriage after breaking her ankle on an optional horseback ride during a Mexico vacation package that she booked through the defendants. The ride was not part of the official tour itinerary, was arranged independently during free time, and the defendants had no ownership, control, or prior knowledge of the activity. The court considered the defendants' motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, noting the plaintiff's failure to respond and the contract terms disclaiming liability for third-party suppliers. It granted relief to the moving defendants, holding that tour operators owe no duty to guarantee safety or investigate independent local services when they had no actual knowledge of risks and the activity fell outside the tour. The decision relied on precedents establishing that such operators act only as agents and are not liable for negligence by unrelated suppliers.

torts & liability