punitive damages claim in North Carolina

2009Natural] Stores[, Inc.] , 290 N.C. 118 , 225 S.E.2d 797 (1976)." In Oestreicher , 290 N.C. at 130 , 225 S.E.2d at 805 , the Supreme Court held that the trial court's grant of partial summaryjudgment as to the plaintiff's punitive damages claim affected a substantial right and was immediately appealable because the plaintiff had a right to have his claims for breach of contract and for punitive damages heard by the same judge and jury.

2009Natural] Stores[, Inc.] , 290 N.C. 118 , 225 S.E.2d 797 (1976)." In Oestreicher , 290 N.C. at 130 , 225 S.E.2d at 805 , the Supreme Court held that the trial court's grant of partial summaryjudgment as to the plaintiff's punitive damages claim affected a substantial right and was immediately appealable because the plaintiff had a right to have his claims for breach of contract and for punitive damages heard by the same judge and jury.

1985While this allegation mentions no particular instance of aggravated conduct, we believe that it is sufficient, under the rule of Shugar v. Guill, 304 N.C. 332 , 283 S.E. 2d 507 (1981), and G.S. 1A-1, Rule 8(a)(1) to put Dr. Averett on notice of the punitive damages claim, to provide an understanding of the nature and basis of the claim, and to allow him to prepare his defense.

1985While this allegation mentions no particular instance of aggravated conduct, we believe that it is sufficient, under the rule of Shugar v. Guill, 304 N.C. 332 , 283 S.E. 2d 507 (1981), and G.S. 1A-1, Rule 8(a)(1) to put Dr. Averett on notice of the punitive damages claim, to provide an understanding of the nature and basis of the claim, and to allow him to prepare his defense.

2018App. 142 , 150, 746 S.E.2d 13 , 20 (2013) (affirming dismissal of a punitive damages claim where all substantive claims were also properly dismissed).

2016App. ___, 775 S.E.2d 882 , 884–85 (affirming the trial court’s finding that the punitive damages claim arose from a “common legal and factual nucleus” even though it “did not share [certain elements] with the underlying claims”), disc. review denied, 368 N.C. 434 , 778 S.E.2d 84 (2015).

2016App. ___, 775 S.E.2d 882 , 884–85 (affirming the trial court’s finding that the punitive damages claim arose from a “common legal and factual nucleus” even though it “did not share [certain elements] with the underlying claims”), disc. review denied, 368 N.C. 434 , 778 S.E.2d 84 (2015).

2016Cases also suggest that a common nucleus of operative fact includes something more than just a shared potential relevance, and instead exists when the claims are based on facts that are “inextricably interwoven.” Okwara, 136 N.C.

2016App. ___, 775 S.E.2d 882 , 884–85 (affirming the trial court’s finding that the punitive damages claim arose from a “common legal and factual nucleus” even though it “did not share [certain elements] with the underlying claims”), disc. review denied, 368 N.C. 434 , 778 S.E.2d 84 (2015).

2009This Court, however, in Moose v. Nissan of Statesville, Inc. , 115 N.C.

2009Further, [the] plaintiff points to nothing that might be contained in the discovery material he claims was inappropriately destroyed which would support such a claim.” Id. at 586 , 574 S.E.2d at 688 .

2009Further, [the] plaintiff points to nothing that might be contained in the discovery material he claims was inappropriately destroyed which would support such a claim.” Id. at 586 , 574 S.E.2d at 688 .

2008As we stated in the previous Scarborough case, the 24 February 2005 order was in error because "[c]ontrary to the requirements of section 1D-50 . . . [it] contains no reasons as to why the trial court set aside the jury's verdict on the punitive damages claim." Scarborough, 179 N.C.App. at 130 , 632 S.E.2d at 803 . [5] The trial court's 8 January 2007 order concluded "[t]here was no clear and convincing evidence that Dillard's (the corporation) instituted a malicious prosecution of the plaintiff," but it is not clear whether the order was based on insufficient evidence of malice, of willful an

2008As we stated in the previous Scarborough case, the 24 February 2005 order was in error because "[c]ontrary to the requirements of section 1D-50 . . . [it] contains no reasons as to why the trial court set aside the jury's verdict on the punitive damages claim." Scarborough, 179 N.C.App. at 130 , 632 S.E.2d at 803 . [5] The trial court's 8 January 2007 order concluded "[t]here was no clear and convincing evidence that Dillard's (the corporation) instituted a malicious prosecution of the plaintiff," but it is not clear whether the order was based on insufficient evidence of malice, of willful an

2006Id.

2001The essential question on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) “is whether the complaint, when liberally construed, states a claim upon which relief can be granted on any theory.” Barnaby v. Boardman, 70 N.C.

1999Id. at 628 , 359 S.E.2d at 50 .

1999Id. at 628 , 359 S.E.2d at 50 .

1995Lee v. Bir, 116 N.C.

1989Furthermore, we find that according to Byrne v. Bordeaux, 85 N.C.

1989Likewise we are not persuaded that the defendant’s intent to turn into the lane of traffic was itself a wanton act. “[TJhough the vast majority of motor vehicular collisions result from intentional turns or acts of one kind or another, only a small percentage of such acts exceed the level of ordinary negligence.” Nance v. Robertson, 91 N.C.

1985App. 289 , 322 S.E. 2d 567 (1984), disc. rev. allowed, 313 N.C. 327 , 327 S.E. 2d 887 (1985), also a medical malpractice action, that defendant physicians’ attempt to hide their malpractice by “fabricating a trail of evidence” after the fact could not be the basis of a punitive damages claim where there was no evidence that their deception aggravated their tortious conduct.

1985App. 289 , 322 S.E. 2d 567 (1984), disc. rev. allowed, 313 N.C. 327 , 327 S.E. 2d 887 (1985), also a medical malpractice action, that defendant physicians’ attempt to hide their malpractice by “fabricating a trail of evidence” after the fact could not be the basis of a punitive damages claim where there was no evidence that their deception aggravated their tortious conduct.

1985App. 289 , 322 S.E. 2d 567 (1984), disc. rev. allowed, 313 N.C. 327 , 327 S.E. 2d 887 (1985), also a medical malpractice action, that defendant physicians’ attempt to hide their malpractice by “fabricating a trail of evidence” after the fact could not be the basis of a punitive damages claim where there was no evidence that their deception aggravated their tortious conduct.

1981As in King v. Insurance Co., supra, and Ledford v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 318 F. Supp. 1333 (W.D.

1956(Cf. Foster v. Hyman, 197 N.C. 189 , 148 S.E. 36 , where Adams, J., discusses wilful and wanton conduct as a basis for execution against'the person.) Our cases deal with libel and slander, assault, fraud, false arrest and malicious prosecution, officious conduct by agents of common carriers, etc. In the recent case of Lutz Industries, Inc., v. Dixie Home Stores, 242 N.C. 332 , 88 S.E. 2d 333 , where plaintiff’s action was grounded on negligence, it was held that the facts alleged were insufficient to support an award of punitive damages.

1956(Cf. Foster v. Hyman, 197 N.C. 189 , 148 S.E. 36 , where Adams, J., discusses wilful and wanton conduct as a basis for execution against'the person.) Our cases deal with libel and slander, assault, fraud, false arrest and malicious prosecution, officious conduct by agents of common carriers, etc. In the recent case of Lutz Industries, Inc., v. Dixie Home Stores, 242 N.C. 332 , 88 S.E. 2d 333 , where plaintiff’s action was grounded on negligence, it was held that the facts alleged were insufficient to support an award of punitive damages.

1956(Cf. Foster v. Hyman, 197 N.C. 189 , 148 S.E. 36 , where Adams, J., discusses wilful and wanton conduct as a basis for execution against'the person.) Our cases deal with libel and slander, assault, fraud, false arrest and malicious prosecution, officious conduct by agents of common carriers, etc. In the recent case of Lutz Industries, Inc., v. Dixie Home Stores, 242 N.C. 332 , 88 S.E. 2d 333 , where plaintiff’s action was grounded on negligence, it was held that the facts alleged were insufficient to support an award of punitive damages.

1956(Cf. Foster v. Hyman, 197 N.C. 189 , 148 S.E. 36 , where Adams, J., discusses wilful and wanton conduct as a basis for execution against'the person.) Our cases deal with libel and slander, assault, fraud, false arrest and malicious prosecution, officious conduct by agents of common carriers, etc. In the recent case of Lutz Industries, Inc., v. Dixie Home Stores, 242 N.C. 332 , 88 S.E. 2d 333 , where plaintiff’s action was grounded on negligence, it was held that the facts alleged were insufficient to support an award of punitive damages.