Burress v. Burress

N.C. Ct. App.February 17, 2009No. COA08-660Cited 14 times

Defendant WinBurress

Case Details

Judge(s): Steelman, Geer, Stephens
Status: Published
Procedural Posture: appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Harassment

Outcome

The appellate court reversed and vacated the domestic violence protective order, finding insufficient competent evidence to support the trial court's findings of fact regarding domestic violence against either the plaintiff or minor children, and that the findings did not support the legal conclusions necessary to issue such an order.

Excerpt

Domestic Violence — protective order — insufficient evidence The trial court erred by issuing a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) where there was no competent evidence that defendant caused or attempted to cause bodily injury or committed any sex offense against a minor child in plaintiff's custody, or placed a member of plaintiff's family in fear of imminent serious bodily injury or continued harassment that rose to the level of substantial emotional distress. The fact of a DSS investigation of abuse was not relevant to whether defendant actually committed acts of domestic violence, a statement by plaintiffs son was admitted for the limited purpose of explaining plaintiff's actions and was not competent to support a finding of domestic violence, and plaintiffs testimony was not sufficient to support the court's finding of previous violence. Moreover, a DVPO is authorized only upon a showing of acts which the court may bring about a halt.

What This Ruling Means

**Case Summary: Burress v. Burress** This case involved a family dispute where one person (the plaintiff) asked a court to issue a Domestic Violence Protective Order against another family member (the defendant). The plaintiff claimed the defendant had engaged in harassment and domestic violence that warranted court protection. The trial court initially granted the protective order, but the defendant appealed this decision to a higher court. The appeals court carefully reviewed all the evidence presented and found there wasn't enough proof to support the claims. Specifically, the court determined there was no solid evidence that the defendant had caused or tried to cause physical harm, committed any offenses against children, or engaged in harassment severe enough to cause serious emotional distress or fear of harm. The appeals court reversed the trial court's decision and removed the protective order entirely. **What This Means for Workers:** While this case involves family law rather than employment law, it demonstrates an important principle that applies in workplace harassment cases too. Courts require concrete, competent evidence to prove harassment claims - not just accusations or assumptions. Workers facing harassment should document incidents thoroughly with dates, witnesses, and specific details, as solid evidence is essential for successful legal outcomes in any harassment case.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse more:Harassment cases

5th CircuitSep 2014

Remanded

Elizabeth F. Smith v. First Union National Bank

1st CircuitJan 2000

Mixed Result

Sylvia Dominguez-Curry v. Nevada Transportation Department Roc Stacey

9th CircuitSep 2005

Plaintiff Win

Roby v. McKesson Corp.

Cal. SupremeNov 2009

Plaintiff Win

Barbara Von Gunten v. State of Maryland, Maryland Department of the Environment, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Curiae

4th CircuitMar 2001

Defendant Win

Read Full Opinion More Burress Rulings All Rulings

Browse Related

More harassment cases

Facing something similar at work?

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.

Check Your Rights Learn the Basics

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.