Owens v. W.K. Deal Printing, Inc., 453 S.E.2d 160 (N.C. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Owens v. W.K. Deal Printing, Inc., 453 S.E.2d 160 (N.C. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
25 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Alford v. Catalytica Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ncctapp, 2002-06-04)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Alford v. Catalytica Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (2×)
N.C. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
We reemphasize that plaintiffs in Woodson actions need only establish that the employer intentionally engaged in misconduct and that the employer knew that such misconduct was `substantially certain' to cause serious injury or death, and thus, the conduct was `so egregious as to be tantamount to an intentional tort.'" Id. at 604, 453 S.E.2d at 161 (emphasis supplied).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wiggins v. Pelikan, Inc.
N.C. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Deal Printing, Inc., 339 N.C. 603, 604 , 453 S.E.2d 160, 161 (1995) (quoting Pendergrass v. Card Care, Inc., 333 N.C. 233, 239 , 424 S.E.2d 391, 395 (1993)); see Kolbinsky v. Paramount Homes, Inc., 126 N.C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kolbinsky v. Paramount Homes, Inc.
N.C. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
Deal Printing, Inc., 339 N.C. 603, 604 , 453 S.E.2d 160, 161 (1995) (quoting Pendergrass v. Card Care, Inc., 333 N.C. 233, 239 , 424 S.E.2d 391, 395 (1993)).
discussed Cited "see" Keith v. U.S. Airways, Inc. (2×)
M.D.N.C. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Owens v. W.K Deal Printing, Inc., 339 N.C. 603, 604 , 453 S.E.2d 160, 161 (1995) (per curiam).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Valleree L. Owens
v.
W.K. Deal Printing, Inc.
65A94.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Feb 10, 1995.
453 S.E.2d 160
Frederick R. Stann and Wallace and Whitley, by Michael Doran, for the plaintiff-appellant. , Alala Mullen Holland & Cooper RA., by H. Randolph Sumner and Jesse V. Bone, Jr., for the defendant-appellee.
Per Curiam.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

For the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Judge Wynn in this case, Owens v. W.K. Deal Printing, Inc., 113 N.C. App. 324, 328-32, 438 S.E.2d 440, 443-45 (1994), the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. To the extent that it may be read as implying that actions authorized under Woodson v. Rowland, 329 N.C. 330, 407 S.E.2d 222 (1991), seek recovery for “intentional torts” in the true sense of that term, we do not accept the reasoning of Judge Wynn’s dissent. We reemphasize that plaintiffs in Woodson actions need only establish that the employer intentionally engaged in misconduct and that the employer knew that such misconduct was “substantially certain” to cause serious injury or death and, thus, the conduct was “so egregious as to be tantamount to an intentional tort.” Pendergrass v. Card Care, Inc., 333 N.C. 233, 239, 424 S.E.2d 391, 395 (1993).

REVERSED.