Outen v. Mical
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
EAGLES, Judge.
I
Defendants argue that the trial court erred by entering a judgment that runs in favor of plaintiff personally. “Ordinarily stockholders have no right in their name to enforce causes of action accruing to the corporation.” Fulton v. Talbert, 255 N.C. 183, 185, 120 S.E.2d 410, 412 (1961). Thus, in a derivative action, the recovery goes to the corporation. Russell M. Robinson, II, Robinson On North Carolina Corporation Law § 17.2(a) (1990). However, a shareholder may attempt to bring a direct cause of action in addition to a derivative action and might be able to recover…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Worthington v. BynumSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- Howell v. FisherCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980
- Glenn v. Hoteltron Systems Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Freese v. SmithCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993
- Snead v. HollomanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- Norman v. Nash Johnson & Sons' Farms, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
- Aubin v. SusiCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
- Regions Bank v. Reg'l Prop. Dev. Corp.North Carolina Business Court · 2008
- Barger v. McCoy Hillard & ParksCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1995
- T-Wol Acquisition Co. v. Ecdg South, LLCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.