stand-alone claim (North Carolina) · Go Syfert
← North Carolina issues

stand-alone claim in North Carolina

10 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 2019–2025 6 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Funderburk v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.green
ncctapp · 2015 · cited in 9 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2019–2025
2 sentences

2025Thus, this claim should also have been dismissed.2 Finally, as to Plaintiffs’ claim for Punitive Damages, “a claim for punitive damages is not a stand-alone claim.” Funderburk v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 241 N.C.

2022App. 415, 425 , 775 S.E.2d 1, 8 (2015) (“[A] claim for punitive damages is not a stand-alone claim.”).

99
Thompson v. Bank of Am., N.A.green
ncctapp · 2015 · cited in 2 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
2 sentences

2019App. 415, 425 (2015); see also Thompson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2015 N.C.

2019App. 415, 425 (2015); see also Thompson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 2015 N.C.

22
Beam v. Sunset Fin. Servs., Inc.green
ncbizct · 2019 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022Servs., 2019 NCBC 55, ¶ 59 (N.C.

11
Zurosky v. Shaffergreen
ncctapp · 2015 · cited in 1 North Carolina opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021
1 sentence

2021App. 415, 425 (2015))); see also Thompson v. Bank of Am., N.A., 242 N.C.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in North Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1 (6) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1-52 (3) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1D-15 (3) NC § N.C. Gen. Stat. § 78A-56 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

TN 15 (2009–2026) CA 12 (2009–2026) PA 12 (2008–2024) NC 10 (2019–2025) TX 9 (2009–2023) OR 8 (2020–2025) MD 7 (2013–2023) NY 5 (2017–2026) OH 4 (2007–2024) IA 4 (2002–2024) WV 4 (2012–2026) VI 4 (2014–2023) VA 3 (2002–2025) UT 3 (2014–2019) WA 3 (2015–2021) MT 3 (2002–2015) NM 3 (2018–2024) MI 3 (2014–2022) DE 2 (2021–2022) KY 2 (2011–2020) CO 2 (2013–2026) AR 2 (2006–2006)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check