{
  "id": 8527267,
  "name": "CHARLES J. TRAVIS v. KNOB CREEK, INC. AND ETHAN ALLEN, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Travis v. Knob Creek, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1989-06-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 8825SC1001",
  "first_page": "374",
  "last_page": "377",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "94 N.C. App. 374"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "362 S.E. 2d 277",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "321 N.C. 279",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2571953
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/321/0279-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "353 S.E. 2d 229",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N.C. App. 561",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        12168981
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/84/0561-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-52",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(1)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "342 S.E. 2d 892",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 N.C. 375",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4701056,
        4695055,
        4700401,
        4695802,
        4703035
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/316/0375-03",
        "/nc/316/0375-04",
        "/nc/316/0375-02",
        "/nc/316/0375-01",
        "/nc/316/0375-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "336 S.E. 2d 146",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 N.C. App. 792",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525427
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/77/0792-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "372 S.E. 2d 739",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N.C. App. 621",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526357
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/91/0621-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 S.E. 2d 181",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "286 N.C. 235",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565054
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/286/0235-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 335,
    "char_count": 5352,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.758,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7505410547101394
    },
    "sha256": "6d331baba0c56768f7fbe1fcc5b21e5de4a0a3e340365526052944ea6d568c3c",
    "simhash": "1:211bf430167e9ec4",
    "word_count": 880
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:07:12.068465+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge HEDRICK and Judge ARNOLD concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CHARLES J. TRAVIS v. KNOB CREEK, INC. AND ETHAN ALLEN, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nIn this appeal, defendants have assigned error to the trial court\u2019s excluding evidence pertaining to the release executed by plaintiff. In its opinion, our Supreme Court clearly determined this issue adversely to defendants. We quote:\nAt the time he signed his general release, the plaintiff neither had a cause of action nor had he asserted a legal right to continue working for Knob Creek. Until Knob Creek sought to discharge him, there was no reason for him to make such an assertion. His \u201cclaim\u201d did not arise until over four years after the date of the release. The release did not specifically include future claims or existing non-asserted rights, and it did not contain any language implying that such claims or rights were being released. As a matter of law, the release here could not bar the plaintiff\u2019s claim or his right to work under the terms of the employment contract, because the release did not specifically refer to future claims or existing rights.\nTravis, supra. Our Supreme Court\u2019s decision on this issue constitutes the law of the case and is thus binding on subsequent proceedings and appeals. See Tennessee-Carolina Transportation v. Strick Corp., 286 N.C. 235, 210 S.E. 2d 181 (1974); Lowder v. All Star Mills, 91 N.C. App. 621, 372 S.E. 2d 739 (1988). We therefore hold that the trial court properly excluded defendants\u2019 proffered evidence pertaining to plaintiff\u2019s release and overrule this assignment of error.\nDefendants also attempt to present a question pertaining to the application of the three-year statute of limitations to plaintiff\u2019s claim, asserting that the statute operated to bar plaintiff\u2019s claim. Defendants failed to raise this defense at the second trial, and therefore they may not now raise it on appeal. Contentions not raised at trial may not be raised for the first time on appeal. See Childers v. Hayes, 77 N.C. App. 792, 336 S.E. 2d 146 (1985), disc. rev. denied, 316 N.C. 375, 342 S.E. 2d 892 (1986), and cases cited therein.\nNo error.\nChief Judge HEDRICK and Judge ARNOLD concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WELLS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Patrick, Harper & Dixon, by Stephen M. Thomas, for plaintiff-appellee.",
      "Blakeney, Alexander & Machen, by W. S. Blakeney and David L. Terry, for defendant-appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CHARLES J. TRAVIS v. KNOB CREEK, INC. AND ETHAN ALLEN, INC.\nNo. 8825SC1001\n(Filed 20 June 1989)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 68; Master and Servant \u00a7 9\u2014 breach of employment contract \u2014release executed by employee \u2014 evidence excluded \u2014prior Supreme Court ruling controlling\nIn an action for breach of a written, fixed term employment contract where plaintiff sought monetary damages, the Supreme Court in an earlier appeal of the action clearly determined that the trial court did not err in excluding evidence pertaining to a release executed by plaintiff.\n2. Appeal and Error \u00a7 12\u2014 application of statute of limitations\u2014 failure to raise defense at trial \u2014 no consideration on appeal\nDefendants could not raise on appeal a question pertaining to the application of the three-year statute of limitations to plaintiff\u2019s claim, since defendants failed to raise this defense at the second trial.\nAppeal by defendants from Owens, Hollis M., Jr., Judge. Judgment entered 20 April 1988 in CATAWBA County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 May 1989.\nA review of the history of this case is appropriate for understanding our disposition of this appeal.\nPlaintiff brought an action against defendants for breach of a written, fixed term employment contract, seeking monetary damages. At the first trial of the case, the following issues were submitted to and answered by the jury:\n1. Did the plaintiff enter into an agreement with Knob Creek, Inc. by the terms of which the plaintiff was to be employed for a term of years for specified sums?\nAnswer \u2014 Yes\n2. Did the plaintiff substantially perform the agreement?\nAnswer \u2014 Yes\n3. Did the defendants breach the agreement?\nAnswer \u2014 Yes\n4. Did the release executed by the plaintiff in December 1979 serve to bar the plaintiff from recovery upon the contract of employment?\nAnswer \u2014 Yes\n5. What amount of wages, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover of the defendants?\nAnswer \u2014 _\nFrom judgment entered in defendants\u2019 favor on the jury\u2019s verdict, plaintiff appealed to this Court. In that appeal, defendants cross-assigned as error the trial court\u2019s denial of their motion for a directed verdict on the grounds that plaintiff\u2019s claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-52(1) (1983). This Court found no error in the trial, but did not reach defendants\u2019 cross-assignment of error. See Travis v. Knob Creek, Inc., 84 N.C. App. 561, 353 S.E. 2d 229 (1987). On discretionary review, our Supreme Court reversed the decision of this Court, holding that the trial court erred in submitting the release issue to the jury, and ordered a new trial. See Travis v. Knob Creek, Inc., 321 N.C. 279, 362 S.E. 2d 277 (1987). In its opinion, the Supreme Court determined that defendants had abandoned the statute of limitations question in their presentation to that court.\nAt the second trial, the jury awarded plaintiff monetary damages in the amount of $133,800.00, and from judgment entered for plaintiff on that verdict, defendants now appeal.\nWe refer to our previous opinion and the opinion of our Supreme Court for further factual details of this case.\nPatrick, Harper & Dixon, by Stephen M. Thomas, for plaintiff-appellee.\nBlakeney, Alexander & Machen, by W. S. Blakeney and David L. Terry, for defendant-appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0374-01",
  "first_page_order": 404,
  "last_page_order": 407
}