Legal Opinion · Dissent

Kurtzman v. Applied Analytical Industries, Inc.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 7, 1997No. 103PA97Published

1DissentJustice Frye

Although our cases have in the past made reference to the existence of an “additional consideration” exception to the doctrine of employment at will, see Harris v. Duke Power Co., 319 N.C. 627, 629, 356 S.E.2d 357, 359 (1987); Tuttle v. Kernersville Lumber Co., 263 N.C. 216, 219, 139 S.E.2d 249, 251 (1964), and our Court of Appeals has more fully described the exception based on moving residence, see Sides v. Duke Univ., 74 N.C. App. 331, 345, 328 S.E.2d 818, 828, disc. rev. denied, 314 N.C. 331, 333 S.E.2d 490 (1985); Burkhimer v. Gealy, 39 N.C. App. 450, 454, 250 S.E.2d 678, 682, disc. rev.…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Coman v. Thomas Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1989
  2. Dickinson v. PakeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1974
  3. Sides v. Duke UniversityCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
  4. Manganello v. Permastone, Inc.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1977
  5. Sides v. Duke UniversitySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1985

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API