Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-968_8nj9.pdf
Page Number: 9

6 

UZUEGBUNAM v. PRECZEWSKI 

Opinion of the Court 

the  court  rejected  the  plaintiff ’s  claim  because,  among 
other reasons, the plaintiff had not established actual dam-
ages.  Ashby v. White, 2 Raym. Ld. 938, 941–943, 948, 92
Eng. Rep. 126, 129, 130, 133 (K. B. 1703).  Dissenting, Lord
Holt argued that the common law inferred damages when-
ever a legal right was violated.  Observing that the law rec-
ognized “not merely pecuniary” injury but also “personal in-
jury,”  Lord  Holt  stated  that  “every  injury  imports  a
damage” and that a plaintiff could always obtain damages 
even  if  he  “does  not  lose  a  penny  by  reason  of  the  [viola-
tion].”  Id., at 955, 92 Eng. Rep., at 137.  Although Lord Holt
was in the minority, the House of Lords overturned the ma-
jority decision, thus validating Lord Holt’s position, 3 Salk.
17, 91 Eng. Rep. 665 (K. B. 1703), and this principle “laid 
down . . . by Lord Holt” was followed “in many subsequent 
cases,”  Embrey  v.  Owen,  6  Exch.  353,  368,  155  Eng.  Rep. 
579, 585 (1851).

The dissent correctly notes that English courts differed in 
some  respects  from  courts  under  our  system,  but  Lord 
Holt’s  position  also  prevailed  in  courts  on  this  side  of  the 
Atlantic.    Applying  what  he  called  Lord  Holt’s  “incontro-
vertible” reasoning, Justice Story explained that a prevail-
ing plaintiff “is entitled to a verdict for nominal damages” 
whenever “no other [kind of damages] be proved.”  Webb v. 
Portland Mfg. Co., 29 F. Cas. 506, 508–509 (No. 17,322) (CC 
Me. 1838).  Because the common law recognized that “every 
violation  imports  damage,”  Justice  Story  reasoned  that 
“[t]he law tolerates no farther inquiry than whether there
has been the violation of a right.”  Ibid.  Justice Story also
made clear that this logic applied to both retrospective and
prospective  relief.    Id.,  at  507  (stating  that  nominal  dam-
ages are available “wherever there is a wrong” and that, “[a] 
fortiori, this doctrine applies where there is not only a vio-
lation of a right of the plaintiff, but the act of the defendant,
if continued, may become the foundation, by lapse of time,
of an adverse right”).