Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contracttortjurisdictiondamagesstatutemotion
contracttortplaintiffdefendantdamagesstatutemotion

Related Cases

Bailey v. C.S., 12 S.W.3d 159
View Case »
Knowles v. Corkill, 51 P.3d 859, 2002 WY 119
View Case »
Mid-Continent Tel. Corp. v. Home Tel. Co., 319 F.Supp. 1176
View Case »
Majca v. Beekil, 183 Ill.2d 407, 701 N.E.2d 1084, 233 Ill.Dec. 810
View Case »
Kudlacik v. Johnny’s Shawnee, Inc., 309 Kan. 788, 440 P.3d 576
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Speer v. Dealy, 242 Neb. 542, 495 N.W.2d 911

Facts

John S. Speer III married Jolynne Speer on March 1, 1983. Both were employees of the Union Pacific Railroad, where M. David Dealy was an executive officer. Beginning January 10, 1989, Dealy sent Jolynne gifts and arranged business trips, leading to an extramarital affair. This affair caused marital difficulties, resulting in separation and significant emotional distress for John, who later required hospitalization and counseling after discovering the affair on August 15, 1989.

The plaintiff married Jolynne Speer on March 1, 1983. The plaintiff and his wife were employees of the Union Pacific Railroad, and the defendant, M. David Dealy, was an executive officer of the railroad with supervisory status over the plaintiff and his wife. On January 10, 1989, and continuing thereafter, the defendant began sending the plaintiff's wife flowers, money, and other gifts. It was at approximately this time that the alleged affair between the defendant and the plaintiff's wife began.

Issue

Whether the husband's claims for tortious interference with a marital contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress are valid under Nebraska law, given that claims for alienation of affections and criminal conversation have been abolished.

Whether the husband's claims for tortious interference with a marital contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress are valid under Nebraska law, given that claims for alienation of affections and criminal conversation have been abolished.

Rule

The common-law actions of alienation of affections and criminal conversation have been barred in Nebraska by statute. The tort of intentional interference with a contract is not available in marital relationships, and intentional infliction of emotional distress is unavailable when predicated on conduct leading to the dissolution of marriage.

The common-law actions of alienation of affections and criminal conversation have been barred in Nebraska by statute. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25–21,188 (Reissue 1989).

Analysis

The court determined that the husband's claims were essentially for alienation of affections and criminal conversation, which are not recognized under Nebraska law. The damages sought by the husband stemmed from the loss of consortium with his wife, and the court found that the allegations did not distinguish the claims from those that have been abolished. The court referenced similar cases from other jurisdictions that have reached the same conclusion.

The court determined that the husband's claims were essentially for alienation of affections and criminal conversation, which are not recognized under Nebraska law. The damages sought by the husband stemmed from the loss of consortium with his wife, and the court found that the allegations did not distinguish the claims from those that have been abolished.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the husband's claims, holding that neither theory of recovery was viable under Nebraska law due to the statutory abolition of claims for alienation of affections and criminal conversation.

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the husband's claims, holding that neither theory of recovery was viable under Nebraska law due to the statutory abolition of claims for alienation of affections and criminal conversation.

Who won?

M. David Dealy prevailed in the case because the court upheld the dismissal of the husband's claims, finding them to be barred by statute.

M. David Dealy prevailed in the case because the court upheld the dismissal of the husband's claims, finding them to be barred by statute.

You must be