Legal Opinion

Badame v. Lampke

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided October 19, 1955No. 243PublishedCited by 59 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtJohnson, J.

Decision here turns on whether the words alleged to. have been spoken of the plaintiff are actionable per se.

Defamatory words may be actionable per se, that is, in themselves, or they may be actionable per quod, that is, only upon allegation and proof of special damage. However, both classes of words are actionable for the single reason that they cause pecuniary damage to those concerning whom they are maliciously spoken. The difference between the two classes of words is in the mode of proving the resultant damage. As to words actionable per se, the law treats their injurious character as a…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. James v. HaymesSupreme Court of Virginia · 1933
  2. Oates v. Wachovia Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1933
  3. Kindley v. PrivetteSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  4. Broadway v. . CopeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
  5. Deese v. . CollinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1926

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

3Cited by59 opinions

  1. Presnell v. PellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
  2. Johnson v. BollingerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
  3. Johnson v. BollingerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1987
  4. Boyce & Isley, PLLC v. CooperCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
  5. Donovan v. FiumaraCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1994

54 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