Ala. Code
Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 6-5-331 (2026)

Alienation of Affections, Criminal Conversation, and Seduction.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

There shall be no civil claims for alienation of affections, criminal conversation, or seduction of any female person of the age of 19 years or over.

(Acts 1935, No. 356, p. 780; Code 1940, T. 7, §115.)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases, 1978–2014 · leading case: Bailey v. Faulkner, 940 So. 2d 247 (Ala. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bailey v. Faulkner, 940 So. 2d 247 (Ala. 2006). · cites it 22× “Bailey contends that the purported negligent/wanton-counseling claims "are really claims for alienation of affections and therefore barred by Ala.Code § 6-5-331 (1975)." Bailey's brief, at 25.”
Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n, 592 So. 2d 156 (Ala. 1991). · cites it 2× “Code 1975, § 9-6-14 (immunizing pollution control authorities from tort liability), § 11-93-2 (limiting tort liability of governmental entities to $100,000), § 25-5-11(a) (immunizing coemployees from liability for negligence and wantonness), § 32-1-2 (immunizing motor vehicle…”
Nelson v. Jacobsen, 669 P.2d 1207 (Utah 1983). · cites it 2× “[5] Ala. Code § 6-5-331 (1975) (injunction permitted, see Logan v.”
Veeder v. Kennedy, 1999 SD 23 (S.D. 1999). · cites it 2× “[3] States that have abolished the cause of action for alienation of affections: Alabama, AlaCode § 6-5-331 (1993); Arizona, ArizRevStatAnn § 25-341 (West 1991); Arkansas, ArkCode Ann § 16-118-106 (Michie 1997); California, CalCivCode § 43.”
Thomas v. Siddiqui, 869 S.W.2d 740 (Mo. 1994). · cites it 4× “NOTES [1] Alabama, Ala.Code § 6-5-331 (1940) (abolishing both the torts of alienation of affections and criminal conversation [hereafter, "both"]); Arkansas, Ark.”
O'NEIL v. Schuckardt, 733 P.2d 693 (Idaho 1986). · cites it 2× “NOTES [1] Ala. Code 1975, § 6-5-331: Ariz.Rev.Stats.”
Russo v. Sutton, 422 S.E.2d 750 (S.C. 1992). · cites it 2× “[2] Statutes abolishing alienation of affections: Ala. Code § 6-5-331 (1975); Ariz. Rev. Stat.”
Bearbower v. Merry, 266 N.W.2d 128 (Iowa 1978). · cites it 2× “[6] Ala.Code § 6-5-331 (1975); Henley v. Rockett, 243 Ala.”
Hoye v. Hoye, 824 S.W.2d 422 (Ky. 1992). · cites it 2× “01; Official Ga.Code Ann. § 105-1203; West’s Ann.”
Fitch v. Valentine, 959 So. 2d 1012 (Miss. 2007). “The following twenty-five states and the District of Columbia have legislatively abolished the common law tort of alienation of affections: Alabama, Ala. Code § 6-5-331 (1975); Arizona, Ariz.”
SER Justin S. Golden, Sr. v. Hon. Tod J. Kaufman, Judge, 760 S.E.2d 883 (W. Va. 2014). · cites it 4× “8 Twenty-six states and the District of Columbia have abolished criminal conversation by statute: Ala.Code § 6-5-331 (1975); Ark.Stat.Ann. § 16-118-106 (Supp.”
Cannon v. Miller, 322 S.E.2d 780 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “Ala. Code § 6-5-331 (1975) (abolished for monetary damages); Ariz.”
Show all 23 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.