Legal Opinion
Shugar v. Guill
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided November 3, 1981No. 44PublishedCited by 47 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
BRANCH, Chief Justice.
We first consider whether plaintiff’s complaint stated a cause of action for punitive damages.
The rationale permitting recovery of punitive damages is that such damages may be awarded in addition to compensatory damages to punish a defendant for his wrongful acts and to deter others from committing similar acts. A civil action may not be maintained solely for the purpose of collecting punitive damages but may only be awarded when a cause of action otherwise exists in which at least nominal damages are recoverable by the plaintiff. Worthy v. Knight, 210 N.C. 498, 187 S.E.…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Sutton v. DukeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
- Stanback v. StanbackSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Newton v. Standard Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- Oestreicher v. American National Stores, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
- Presnell v. PellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by47 opinions
- Henry v. DeenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
- United Laboratories, Inc. v. KuykendallSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1993
- Hawkins v. HawkinsCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1991
- Oaksmith v. BrusichAlaska Supreme Court · 1989
- Bartlett Milling Co., LP v. Walnut Grove Auction and Realty Co., Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
42 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.