Legal Opinion

Miller v. Ruth's of North Carolina, Inc.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided April 17, 1984No. 8326SC28PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JOHNSON, Judge.

Plaintiff contends that the court erred in denying his request for attorneys’ fees under G.S. 55-55(d), which provides that a court “may award” a successful plaintiff in a shareholders’ derivative action “the reasonable expenses of maintaining the action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. . . .”

*42However, since this was not a shareholders’ derivative action, we need not reach the arguments presented by plaintiff concerning the court’s exercise of discretion. In his original complaint, plaintiff did allege damage to the corporations and unsuccessful efforts to obtain relief…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Fulton v. TalbertSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
  2. Parrish v. BrantleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
  3. Hoyle v. . CarterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1939
  4. Flores v. CaldwellCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Norman v. Nash Johnson & Sons' Farms, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
  2. Alford v. ShawCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  3. Lowder v. All Star Mills, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1986
  4. Miller v. Ruth's of North Carolina, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984
  5. Corwin v. British Am. Tobacco P.L.C.North Carolina Business Court · 2015

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API