No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Jury found for plaintiff on alienation of affection and criminal conversation claims, awarding $50,000 in compensatory damages and $50,000 in punitive damages. Appellate court affirmed the verdict and judgment.
1. Alienation of Affections; Criminal Conversation — common law tort — recognized by North Carolina Supreme Court The Court of Appeals has no authority to abolish the torts of alienation of affection and criminal conversation even though defendant contends the torts are archaic, antiquated, and offensive to the concept of feminine equality, because: (1) neither tort is a statutory creation, and both emanate from the common law and have been recognized by our Supreme Court; and (2) the Court of Appeals has no authority to overrule decisions of our Supreme Court. 2. Evidence — exclusion of statements made to defendant by plaintiff's wife — harmless error The trial court did not err in an alienation of affections and criminal conversation case by excluding testimony concerning statements made to defendant by plaintiff's wife concerning her relationship with plaintiff, because some of the excluded evidence was later admitted through the testimony of plaintiff's wife, rendering harmless its exclusion during defendant's testimony, and defendant made no offer of proof as to the other testimony. 3. Appeal and Error — preservation of issues — failure to cite authority — general objections — failure to show prejudice Although defendant contends the trial court erred in an alienation of affections and criminal conversation case by permitting plaintiff to cross-examine defendant concerning property owned by defendant's father and to cross-examine plaintiff's wife concerning the pendency of charges against her for embezzlement from her place of employment, this assignment of error is dismissed because: (1) defendant did not preserve this issue for appeal by failing to cite any authority and by interposing only general objections at trial; and (2) defendant has neither argued nor demonstrated that he was prejudiced b
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
unemployment benefits; discharge; voluntary departure; misconduct; benefit eligibility.
second opinion evaluation, temporary partial disability, wage records
NCWHA, UDTP, severance payment, non-compete payment
Rule 12(b)(6); at-will employment; wrongful discharge; N.C.G.S. § 143-422.2; sex discrimination.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.