James Bryan McMillan

In Noland v. Dixon, a federal district court considered a habeas corpus petition filed by John Thomas Noland Jr., who had been convicted in North Carolina state court of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The court granted relief on several claims, including that jury instructions improperly required unanimity for mitigating factors at sentencing, that the petitioner received ineffective assistance of counsel at trial, that the prosecution improperly commented on the defendant's silence, and that there were errors in guilt-phase jury instructions. It also ordered an evidentiary hearing on the petitioner's mental competence to stand trial. As a result, the court set aside the conviction and sentence, allowing the state to retry the petitioner only after determining his competence and providing a fair trial consistent with constitutional standards, while declining to reach several other claims.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involves the United States government's civil forfeiture action against a strip shopping center in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, known as Leola’s Plaza, valued at around $300,000. The government alleged the property was purchased with proceeds from Leroy Ragin's drug-related crimes, including money laundering and operating a continuing criminal enterprise, for which he was convicted. Claimant Leola Marsh, Ragin's aunt, asserted an interest in the property, but the court found the government's evidence established probable cause for forfeiture and that Marsh's response failed to raise any genuine issue of material fact under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations in full, granting the government's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Marsh's claim and counterclaims, defaulting all other potential claimants, and ordering forfeiture of the property to the United States (subject to a consent order protecting the interest of secured creditor First Citizens Bank).

criminal lawproperty

This case involved two black women employees suing their white former employer, an insurance agency, for racial discrimination in hiring, promotion, demotion, and termination decisions, along with related common-law claims. The jury rejected the plaintiffs' claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and North Carolina common law, but the court separately considered Mayse's Title VII claim. The court ruled for Mayse on Title VII, finding that she was demoted and discharged due to her race and resistance to the employer's racially discriminatory hiring practices, as shown by internal documents and communications expressing preferences against black applicants. The court granted the plaintiffs a new trial on the claims submitted to the jury.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved a plaintiff who prepared federal income tax returns for individuals in exchange for purchasing their refund checks at a discount, leading the IRS to assess penalties under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6695(c) and (f) for failing to include his Social Security number on returns and for negotiating the checks, on the theory that he was a paid income tax return preparer. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on stipulated facts, including that the plaintiff charged no explicit fees for preparation and that the IRS found no errors in the returns. It held that the plaintiff qualified as a paid preparer under 26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(36) because a portion of the profits from the discounting activities constituted compensation for return preparation. However, the court ruled that this holding would apply only prospectively, allowing the plaintiff to recover representative penalties already paid and barring the government from collecting the remaining assessments, because retroactive application would be unduly harsh given the lack of prior notice, absence of any demonstrated harm to the IRS, and the plaintiff's non-fraudulent conduct.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns the Secretary of Health and Human Services' compliance with a Fourth Circuit decision in Hyatt v. Sullivan regarding Social Security Ruling SSR 88-13 on evaluating pain in disability claims. The district court found that the Secretary's new ruling, SSR 90-1p, inaccurately described the appellate court's holding and failed to properly amend the prior policy as required. The court ordered the Secretary to amend SSR 90-1p within 30 days to accurately reflect compliance with Fourth Circuit law and to immediately cease any policy of disregarding that law in denying benefits to eligible claimants.

federal powerhealthcare

The case concerned a challenge by the North Carolina Civil Liberties Union and individual attorneys to the practice of a state district court judge who opened each morning court session by directing attendees to pause for a prayer that he recited aloud, invoking divine guidance for the proceedings. The court held that this practice violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as applied to the states. It applied the three-part Lemon test and found that the prayer lacked a secular purpose, had the primary effect of advancing religion, and created excessive government entanglement with religion; it distinguished the case from legislative prayer precedents like Marsh v. Chambers due to the lack of historical tradition and the captive nature of the courtroom audience. The judge was enjoined from continuing the practice.

religious libertycivil rights

This case concerns a constitutional challenge to Section 5(b) of the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986, which bars immediate immigrant status for spouses of U.S. citizens if the marriage occurs while deportation proceedings are pending against the noncitizen. Plaintiffs Katherina Manwani, a U.S. citizen, and her husband Prakash Manwani, an Indian national, married in good faith during such proceedings after Mr. Manwani had overstayed his visa; the statute would require them either to separate for two years or for Mrs. Manwani to relocate abroad. The court found the marriage bona fide and held that Section 5(b) violates equal protection because its timing-based distinction does not rationally further Congress's interest in deterring marriage fraud, as the risk of fraud and the difficulty of detection are identical whether a marriage occurs before or during proceedings. The opinion rejects the government's arguments by noting that the provision burdens lawful couples without regard to any heightened evidentiary problems and creates arbitrary outcomes based on when proceedings conclude.

immigrationcivil rightsfederal power

In Walker v. Sullair Corp., plaintiff Cathy Walker sued her former employer under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for sexual discrimination, along with related state-law claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and malicious prosecution. After a jury awarded damages on the emotional-distress claim, the court addressed the Title VII claim and found no unlawful sex discrimination. The court reasoned that the evidence showed no quid pro quo harassment because the prior consensual sexual relationship involved no promises or threats tied to employment benefits, and that no hostile work environment existed because the later monitoring and criticism of Walker’s performance was sex-neutral and not accompanied by sexual advances, slurs, or innuendo.

civil rightslabor & employment

In McPhail v. Wilson, plaintiffs sued defendants in state court under the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, alleging that misrepresentations during a stock sale presentation and various corporate actions by defendants as promoters and directors caused their HyperDril stock to lose value. Defendants removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss, arguing the claims were corporate wrongs redressable only through a derivative suit or were otherwise barred. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that most allegations concerned harms to the corporation affecting all shareholders equally and thus required a derivative action under Texas law, while the misrepresentation claim arose from a securities transaction outside the scope of the UDTPA per North Carolina precedent in Skinner v. E.F. Hutton; the court allowed plaintiffs thirty days to amend to properly plead common law fraud.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a group of North Carolina medical practices and physicians challenging amendments to Medicare Part B under the Social Security Act that capped physician charges to patients and limited reimbursable services. The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Department, upholding the provisions as constitutional. The court found no material facts in dispute and determined that the limits were rationally related to legitimate goals of protecting beneficiaries from unreasonable fees and unnecessary services while controlling program costs. It rejected equal protection claims, noting that distinctions between participating and nonparticipating physicians served valid program objectives, and dismissed takings arguments because Medicare participation is voluntary and does not compel physicians to treat patients.

healthcarefederal powerbusiness & regulatory

Sewell Plastics, a major manufacturer of plastic soft drink bottles, sued The Coca-Cola Company, its licensed bottlers in the Southeast, and a bottler-owned entity called Southeastern Container alleging that the defendants conspired to form Southeastern and shift purchases away from Sewell in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Sections 3 and 7 of the Clayton Act, and the North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. The court entered judgment for the defendants and dismissed the complaint, concluding that the bottlers' actions caused plastic bottle prices to drop by about half, increased production efficiency and output, and left the number of competitors unchanged while reducing market concentration. The decision rested on the finding that these developments produced no adverse effect on competition in the relevant market, consistent with the principle that antitrust laws protect competition rather than individual competitors.

business & regulatory

In Ferguson v. Sullivan, the plaintiff sought judicial review after the Secretary of Health and Human Services refused to reopen his 1980 applications for disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits, which had been denied without a hearing. The court reversed the Secretary's decision and remanded for an award of benefits based on those earlier applications. The core reasoning was that the plaintiff's chronic paranoid schizophrenia rendered him mentally incompetent to pursue timely administrative appeals, and binding him to procedural limitations like administrative finality violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment under precedents such as Shrader v. Harris and Young v. Bowen.

civil rightsprocedurefederal power

This case was a class action lawsuit filed by black employees against Charlotte Memorial Hospital and Medical Center alleging patterns of racial discrimination in employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. The district court found for the plaintiffs on most claims after trial, certified a class of affected non-professional employees, issued an injunction against further discrimination, awarded reinstatement and back pay to certain individuals, and referred remaining claims to a special master. Following a partial reversal on appeal, this order addresses the plaintiffs' motion for attorney fees as prevailing parties. The court awarded counsel for the Norwood plaintiffs $318,682.50 in fees for attorney time at market rates, $34,205.50 for paralegal time, plus costs and interest, based on documented hours worked over twelve years and supporting affidavits regarding reasonable compensation.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case Walker v. Teamsters Local 71 involved over-the-road truck drivers who were members of Teamsters Local 71 alleging that the union and their employer companies violated their rights by agreeing to modifications in the collective bargaining agreement, specifically changes to a mileage pay system, without holding the required ratification vote under the Teamsters Constitution and the National Master Freight Agreement. Plaintiffs brought claims under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, for breach of the union's duty of fair representation, and for breach of contract. After a trial, the court determined that the union failed to provide members a meaningful opportunity to vote on the contract changes and that the employers knowingly participated in circumventing the ratification procedures, resulting in a breach of the collective bargaining agreement. The court ruled for the plaintiffs and ordered the employer defendants to pay back wages to affected drivers retroactive to December 1, 1985.

labor & employment

This case was a class action by North Carolina applicants and recipients of social security disability benefits under Titles II and XVI, challenging the Secretary of Health and Human Services' policies for denying and terminating benefits in ways that disregarded Fourth Circuit precedents on impairments such as hypertension, diabetes, and pain. The court had previously ordered the Secretary to cease nonacquiescence with circuit law, identify affected class members, and issue directives requiring evaluation of subjective pain evidence once an underlying impairment capable of causing pain is shown. In this enforcement proceeding, the court reviewed the Secretary's implementation plan and found it failed to clearly instruct administrative law judges to follow the required standards on subjective pain evidence and residual functional capacity assessments. The court therefore directed the Secretary to adopt specific new instructions effective immediately to ensure compliance with the prior judgment and circuit law.

federal powerhealthcareprocedure

This case involves plaintiffs' fourth and fifth motions for attorneys' fees in a class action challenging the Secretary of Health and Human Services' handling of Social Security disability claims. The court granted the motions, awarding fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(b), at prevailing market rates rather than the statutory cap, for services from July 1985 through June 1988. It found that the government had acted in bad faith, as previously determined in earlier orders, rejecting the Secretary's arguments that special circumstances under § 2412(d) or excessive billing should reduce or deny the award. The court reviewed affidavits and billing records, applied market rates based on factors like complexity and attorney experience, and ordered payment of $315,083.35 in fees plus $28,568.86 in expenses to Legal Services of Southern Piedmont, Inc.

healthcarefederal powerprocedure

In this case, plaintiffs facing state felony charges for disseminating obscenity sought a federal preliminary injunction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to bar the district attorney from prosecuting their expert or others involved in showing the materials to consenting adults for focus groups and surveys to prepare a defense based on community standards. The court granted the injunction after finding that the DA's threat of prosecution raised serious questions under the Fourteenth Amendment by interfering with the plaintiffs' ability to develop expert testimony and effectively usurping the state trial court's role in determining admissible evidence. The decision balanced the equities in favor of allowing defense preparation pending resolution of the federal claims, while clarifying that the state court retains discretion over what evidence may ultimately be presented at trial.

criminal lawfree speechcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned a contract dispute between Southern Distributing Co. and E. & J. Gallo Winery over a 1976 distributorship agreement containing a forum selection clause requiring litigation in California. After the court granted the defendant's motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) based on the clause's enforceability and lack of undue inconvenience, the plaintiff moved for reconsideration of the denial of an amendment to facilitate appeal, arguing the immediate transfer had deprived the Fourth Circuit of jurisdiction. The court decided to direct the clerk to send an informal request for retransfer of the record so the Fourth Circuit could review the transfer order. The core reasoning was that the original transfer decision followed proper analysis of the forum selection clause under Bremen and Stewart standards without abuse of discretion, yet an informal retransfer was warranted in the interest of fairness to avoid any appearance of denying appellate rights, even though the appeal would likely fail on the merits.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

In Sathers Inc. v. Caravan Candy Co., the plaintiff alleged that the defendant was infringing its trade dress by packaging and selling candy in bags with nearly identical closure labels, in violation of the Lanham Act and North Carolina common law. The court granted a preliminary injunction preventing the defendant from using the copied label during the pendency of the suit but denied an injunction against the defendant's modified label. The decision was based on the Fourth Circuit's balance-of-hardships test for preliminary injunctions, finding that the plaintiff showed a likelihood of success due to evidence of intentional copying creating a presumption of confusion, while the harm to the defendant from enjoining the new label outweighed the reduced risk of confusion.

business & regulatoryprocedure

This case was a class action lawsuit brought by mentally retarded adults (including named plaintiff Thomas S.) who had been placed in North Carolina's public psychiatric institutions, alleging violations of their Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights as well as state-created liberty interests. The district court made extensive findings that class members were subjected to unnecessary institutional confinement, excessive use of drugs and restraints, inadequate habilitation and treatment, inhumane conditions, and lack of community-based services, all inconsistent with professional judgment. Applying Youngberg v. Romeo, the court concluded that these conditions violated the plaintiffs' rights to safety, freedom from undue bodily restraint, and minimally adequate habilitation, as well as related state-law interests and freedom of association. It therefore entered injunctive relief requiring the state to provide appropriate individualized treatment and community placements under professional standards, with ongoing monitoring by a special master.

civil rightshealthcare