Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
17 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Mexico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
DeVaney v. Thriftway Marketing Corp.red2 sentences2013Cordova’s complaint raises enough doubts about the propriety of the affidavits and Defendants’ actions to state a claim that Defendants misused procedural devices pursuant to the definition in DeVaney, thereby, satisfying the first element of an abuse of process claim. 1998-NMSC-001, ¶ 28 . 2013He also claims that the affidavits, “on their face, are not competent, replete with rumor and innuendo.” Cordova also claimed that the delay and eventual voluntary dismissal of the charges of malfeasance brought in the petition was an improper use of process and that Defendants brought the recall petition for an improper purpose. {24} Cordova’s complaint raises enough doubts about the propriety of the affidavits and Defendants’ actions to state a claim that Defendants misused procedural devices pursuant to the definition in DeVaney, thereby, satisfying the first element of an abuse of process | 2 | 5 |
Boyer v. Health Grades, Inc.green2 sentences2024Thus, the Boyer Court held that two 11 employees asserting an abuse of process claim against their former employer were 12 not required to meet Protect Our Mountain Env’t’s heightened pleading standard. 13 Boyer, 2015 CO 40, ¶¶ 4, 15-16 . 2024Boyer, 2015 CO 40, ¶¶ 4, 15-16 . | 2 | 2 |
WESTLAND DEVELOPMENT CO., INC. v. Romerogreen2 sentences2009Co. v. Romero, 117 N.M. 292, 294 , 871 P.2d 388, 390 (Ct.App.1994). 2009Co. v. Romero, 117 N.M. 292, 294 , 871 P.2d 388, 390 (Ct.App.1994). | 2 | 2 |
Crackel v. Allstate Insurancegreen2 sentences2007Co., 208 Ariz. 252 , 92 P.3d 882, 887 (Ct.App. 2004) (addressing the two elements of an abuse of process claim in Arizona, which do not include the initiation of judicial proceedings against the plaintiff by the defendant), Hopper v. Drysdale, 524 F.Supp. 1039, 1041-42 (D.Mont.1981) (addressing the three elements of an abuse of process claim in Montana, which do not include the initiation of judicial proceedings against the plaintiff by the defendant), and Givens v. Mullikin ex rel. 2007Co., 208 Ariz. 252 , 92 P.3d 882, 887 (Ct.App. 2004) (addressing the two elements of an abuse of process claim in Arizona, which do not include the initiation of judicial proceedings against the plaintiff by the defendant), Hopper v. Drysdale, 524 F.Supp. 1039, 1041-42 (D.Mont.1981) (addressing the three elements of an abuse of process claim in Montana, which do not include the initiation of judicial proceedings against the plaintiff by the defendant), and Givens v. Mullikin ex rel. | 2 | 2 |
Hopper v. Drysdalegreen2 sentences2007Co., 208 Ariz. 252 , 92 P.3d 882, 887 (Ct.App. 2004) (addressing the two elements of an abuse of process claim in Arizona, which do not include the initiation of judicial proceedings against the plaintiff by the defendant), Hopper v. Drysdale, 524 F.Supp. 1039, 1041-42 (D.Mont.1981) (addressing the three elements of an abuse of process claim in Montana, which do not include the initiation of judicial proceedings against the plaintiff by the defendant), and Givens v. Mullikin ex rel. 2007Co., 208 Ariz. 252 , 92 P.3d 882, 887 (Ct.App. 2004) (addressing the two elements of an abuse of process claim in Arizona, which do not include the initiation of judicial proceedings against the plaintiff by the defendant), Hopper v. Drysdale, 524 F.Supp. 1039, 1041-42 (D.Mont.1981) (addressing the three elements of an abuse of process claim in Montana, which do not include the initiation of judicial proceedings against the plaintiff by the defendant), and Givens v. Mullikin ex rel. | 2 | 2 |
Givens v. Mullikin Ex Rel. McElwaneygreen2 sentences2007Estate of McElwaney, 75 S.W.3d 383, 400 (Tenn.2002) (addressing the two elements of an abuse of process claim in Tennessee, which do not include the initiation of judicial proceedings against the plaintiff by the defendant), with DeVaney, 1998-NMSC-001, ¶ 17 , 124 N.M. 512 , 953 P.2d 277 (restating the torts of abuse of process and malicious prosecution as one cause of action encompassing four elements, one of which requires the initiation of judicial proceedings against the plaintiff by the defendant). {44} Second, in DeVaney , our Supreme Court discussed the tort of malicious abuse of proces 2007Estate of McElwaney, 75 S.W.3d 383, 400 (Tenn.2002) (addressing the two elements of an abuse of process claim in Tennessee, which do not include the initiation of judicial proceedings against the plaintiff by the defendant), with DeVaney, 1998-NMSC-001, ¶17 , 124 N.M. 512 , 953 P.2d 277 (restating the torts of abuse of process and malicious prosecution as one cause of action encompassing four elements, one of which requires the initiation of judicial proceedings against the plaintiff by the defendant). {44} Second, in DeVaney, our Supreme Court discussed the tort of malicious abuse of process | 2 | 2 |
Farmers Gin Company v. Wardgreen2 sentences1994See Farmers Gin Co., 73 N.M. at 407 , 389 P.2d at 11 (abuse of process); Zamora v. Creamland Dairies, Inc., 106 N.M. 628, 632 , 747 P.2d 923, 927 (Ct.App.1987) (malicious prosecution). 1994See Farmers Gin Co., 73 N.M. at 407 , 389 P.2d at 11 (abuse of process); Zamora v. Creamland Dairies, Inc., 106 N.M. 628, 632 , 747 P.2d 923, 927 (Ct.App.1987) (malicious prosecution). | 1 | 3 |
Zamora v. Creamland Dairies, Inc.green2 sentences1990The elements of the tort were spelled out in Zamora v. Creamland Dairies, Inc., 106 N.M. 628 , 747 P.2d 923 (Ct.App.1987): New Mexico case law requires three elements for an abuse of process claim: (1) the existence of an ulterior motive; (2) an act in the use of process which would not be proper in the regular prosecution of the charge; and (3) the plaintiff must suffer damages (there must be an unlawful interference with the plaintiff’s person or property). 1990The elements of the tort were spelled out in Zamora v. Creamland Dairies, Inc., 106 N.M. 628 , 747 P.2d 923 (Ct.App.1987): New Mexico case law requires three elements for an abuse of process claim: (1) the existence of an ulterior motive; (2) an act in the use of process which would not be proper in the regular prosecution of the charge; and (3) the plaintiff must suffer damages (there must be an unlawful interference with the plaintiff’s person or property). | 1 | 2 |
Technical Computer Services, Inc. v. Buckleygreen1 sentence2020Computer Servs., Inc. v. Buckley, 844 P.2d 1249, 1256 (Colo. App. 1992) (“Logically, the same rule should apply if the abuse of process claim is brought as a counterclaim to wrongful litigation rather than as a later separate action.”); 2 D.B. | 1 | 1 |
Psi Metals, Inc., and D. Christopher McDermott v. Firemen's Insurance Company of Newark, New Jerseygreen1 sentence2003Co., 839 F.2d 42, 43 (2d Cir. 1988). {15} We do not interpret the initiation requirement for non-litigant liability for malicious abuse of process in underlying civil lawsuits as narrowly as Wal-Mart does. | 1 | 1 |
Morn v. City of Phoenixgreen2 sentences1990See, e.g., Morn v. City of Phoenix, 152 Ariz. 164 , 730 P.2d 873 (Ct.App.1986); Joseph v. Markovitz, 27 Ariz.App. 122 , 551 P.2d 571 (1976); see also W.P. 1990See, e.g., Morn v. City of Phoenix, 152 Ariz. 164 , 730 P.2d 873 (Ct.App.1986); Joseph v. Markovitz, 27 Ariz.App. 122 , 551 P.2d 571 (1976); see also W.P. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Richardson v. Rutherford
green
2 sentences2009We also stated that, “[w]hile a subsequent act may suffice to prove an abuse of process which was appropriate when issued, it is not an essential element [to stating an abuse of process claim].” Id. 1994Richardson v. Rutherford, 109 N.M. 495 , 787 P.2d 414 (1990), a case relied on by the Romero Group, arguably might be read as blurring the line between malicious prosecution and abuse of process because it held that the improper act required for an abuse of process claim could be the filing of the complaint itself and that an improper subsequent act was not required. | 3 | 1994–2009 |
Hertz Corp. v. Paloni
green
2 sentences1990Farmers Gin Co. v. Ward, 73 N.M. 405 , 389 P.2d 9 (1964); Hertz Corp. v. Paloni, 95 N.M. 212 , 619 P.2d 1256 (Ct. *1152 App. 1980). 1990Farmers Gin Co. v. Ward, 73 N.M. 405 , 389 P.2d 9 (1964); Hertz Corp. v. Paloni, 95 N.M. 212 , 619 P.2d 1256 (Ct. *1152 App. 1980). | 2 | 1987–1990 |
Durham v. Guest
green
1 sentence2020Plaintiffs offer no reason why the Restatement’s framework should be rejected here. {39} Plaintiffs argue that our Supreme Court, in Durham, 2009-NMSC-007, ¶ 29 , “held that lack of probable cause is only a required element for an abuse of process claim that occurs at the initiation of a claim.” But this is incorrect; Durham simply held that a plaintiff alleging a procedural impropriety or wrongful use of proceedings (the second type of misuse of process) need not have initiated judicial proceedings. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Joseph Alexander v. Unification Church Of America
green
1 sentence2003Cf. Alexander v. Unification Church of Am., 634 F.2d 673 , 675-78 (2d Cir.1980) (holding that although the named plaintiffs in the underlying litigation were church members, the church itself could be liable on the abuse of process claim because the church paid all litigation expenses and would have received any award in the underlying litigation), abrogation on other grounds recognized by PSI Metals, Inc. v. Firemen’s Ins. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Joseph, Md v. Markovitz, Md
green
2 sentences1990See, e.g., Morn v. City of Phoenix, 152 Ariz. 164 , 730 P.2d 873 (Ct.App.1986); Joseph v. Markovitz, 27 Ariz.App. 122 , 551 P.2d 571 (1976); see also W.P. 1990See, e.g., Morn v. City of Phoenix, 152 Ariz. 164 , 730 P.2d 873 (Ct.App.1986); Joseph v. Markovitz, 27 Ariz.App. 122 , 551 P.2d 571 (1976); see also W.P. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.