{
  "id": 798762,
  "name": "CHARLES P. FRANK v. STAR TRAX, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Frank v. Star Trax, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1996-05-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 410PA95",
  "first_page": "296",
  "last_page": "297",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "343 N.C. 296"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "461 S.E.2d 808",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N.C. App. 200",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "463 S.E.2d 199",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "342 N.C. 133",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        795986
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/342/0133-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 136,
    "char_count": 1522,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.71,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.028678312905501442
    },
    "sha256": "10cc479a42b9a36d6cb5d83375f8e5fd9325fbc100b868699a0c55fe110b2af1",
    "simhash": "1:011dc4be27df869e",
    "word_count": 251
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:14:44.802104+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CHARLES P. FRANK v. STAR TRAX, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThe sole issue before us, as correctly stated in plaintiffs petition for a writ of certiorari, is: Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the trial court\u2019s award of post-judgment interest on the punitive damages awarded by the jury? Under the authority of Custom Molders, Inc. v. American Yard Prods., Inc., 342 N.C. 133, 463 S.E.2d 199 (1995), we hold that the Court of Appeals did err in so holding. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals on that issue is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for further remand to the Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, for reinstatement of the provision for interest on the award of punitive damages.\nREVERSED AND REMANDED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., by Robert C. Muth and Richard B. Fennell, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "Ellis M. Bragg for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CHARLES P. FRANK v. STAR TRAX, INC.\nNo. 410PA95\n(Filed 10 May 1996)\nJudgments \u00a7 651 (NCI4th)\u2014 punitive damages \u2014 post-judgment interest\nThe trial court properly awarded post-judgment interest on punitive damages awarded by the jury.\nAm Jur 2d, Interest and Usury \u00a7\u00a7 59 et seq.\nOn writ of certiorari to review a unanimous, unpublished decision of the Court of Appeals, 120 N.C. App. 200, 461 S.E.2d 808 (1995), which affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded a judgment entered by Johnson (Marcus L.), J., on 7 December 1993 in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. This Court allowed plaintiff\u2019s petition for certiorari on 7 December 1995. Heard in the Supreme Court 8 April 1996.\nJames, McElroy & Diehl, P.A., by Robert C. Muth and Richard B. Fennell, for plaintiff-appellant.\nEllis M. Bragg for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0296-01",
  "first_page_order": 344,
  "last_page_order": 345
}