Talk:Alienation of affections

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Does "Alienation of affection" have any historical connection with property law?

Can anyone provide a source for New Hampshire as allowing alienation of affection suits? Other sites say Title XLIII, Chapter 460:2 expressly abolishes it. Xrlq (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under the criticism section....

That quote should be removed if only because of it's stupidity.

If they were having consensual relations in their "own beds" there wouldn't be an issue now would there? And sex doesn't even have to be involved in order to bring the suit. No matter how you slice it , the quote is incorrect and therefore pretty much irrelevant as anything other than some guy's opinion and I thought wiki was supposed to be free of opinion and conjecture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.76.241 (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. You're welcome to add competing quotes, or those that make your point, but the quoted author is a leading critic of the statutes in question,and a brief quote from him on the subject is perfectly appropriate TRATTOOO (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina

Is there any reason why the article focuses on a single state, while listing multiple states where the law exists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.6.26 (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason, I suppose, is it gives an example of a law based upon this doctrine. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]