Morris v. Morris

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Morris v. Morris

272 S.E.2d 1, 301 N.C. 525, 1980 N.C. LEXIS 1183

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 2, 1980

DocketNo. 51

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 272 S.E.2d 1 (Morris v. Morris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morris v. Morris, 272 S.E.2d 1, 301 N.C. 525, 1980 N.C. LEXIS 1183 (N.C. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In this action for alimony without divorce on grounds of abandonment and non-support, the defense was constructive abandonment of defendant by plaintiff. Aside from routine evidentiary and jury instruction questions, the principal conten*ion of appellant is that the trial judge erroneously placed upon her uie burden of proving that defendant’s abandonment was without justification, or at least placed upon her a heavier burden in this regard than the law allows, or ought to allow. We have carefully examined each of appellant’s assignments of error in light of the record and her brief. The Court of Appeals’ majority opinion has dealt fully and properly with each of them. For the reasons given in that opinion, therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

Justice BROCK did not participate in the consideration and decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

In this action for alimony without divorce on grounds of abandonment and non-support, the defense was constructive abandonment of defendant by plaintiff. Aside from routine evidentiary and jury instruction questions, the principal conten*ion of appellant is that the trial judge erroneously placed upon her uie burden of proving that defendant’s abandonment was without justification, or at least placed upon her a heavier burden in this regard than the law allows, or ought to allow. We have carefully examined each of appellant’s assignments of error in light of the record and her brief. The Court of Appeals’ majority opinion has dealt fully and properly with each of them. For the reasons given in that opinion, therefore, the decision of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.

Justice BROCK did not participate in the consideration and decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 S.E.2d 1, 301 N.C. 525, 1980 N.C. LEXIS 1183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morris-v-morris-nc-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack