Hall v. Post

Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1988 · Torts

372 S.E.2d 711 (1988)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsInvasion of privacyPublic disclosure of private factsFirst Amendmenttruthful publicationFirst Amendment tensionintentional infliction of emotional distressfalse light

Facts

The Salisbury Post published two articles written by Rose Post about a woman, Aledith Gottschalk, who returned to Rowan County after seventeen years to search for the daughter she and her former husband had abandoned as an infant in 1967. The second article identified the child as plaintiff Susie Hall and identified plaintiff Mary Hall as her adoptive mother, and described the emotional encounter between the families. Plaintiffs alleged they fled their home to avoid public attention and sought psychiatric care for emotional and mental distress caused by the articles. Plaintiffs acknowledged that the facts published about them were true and accurate, but claimed the truthful disclosure of private facts invaded their privacy.

Issue

Does North Carolina recognize a cause of action for tortious invasion of privacy based on the truthful public disclosure of private facts concerning a plaintiff? More specifically, are claims for public disclosure of true but private facts cognizable at law in North Carolina?

Rule

Claims for invasion of privacy by publication of true but private facts are not cognizable at law in North Carolina. The court rejects adoption of the private-facts branch of invasion of privacy because it is constitutionally suspect in light of First Amendment concerns and largely duplicates or overlaps existing tort remedies, especially intentional infliction of emotional distress.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Raleigh, a local magazine published a truthful feature about Dana Mercer’s decades-old infertility treatment and identified her by name. Dana alleges the information had never been publicly discussed and that she suffered severe humiliation, but she pleads only invasion of privacy based on publication of private facts.

Under North Carolina law as stated by the majority, what is the strongest argument for the magazine?

Explanation. The majority held categorically that claims for invasion of privacy by publication of true but private facts are not cognizable at law in North Carolina. It did not adopt the Restatement private-facts tort or a newsworthiness balancing test. Because Dana pleaded only that rejected tort, the magazine has the strongest argument for dismissal.