abuse of process claim (Nevada) · Go Syfert
← Nevada issues

abuse of process claim in Nevada

16 Nevada opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2022 1 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Nevada 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.

Followed or applied (8)

CaseFollowedCited
LaMantia v. Redisigreen
nev · 2002 · cited in 11 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2014–2022
2 sentences

2022Cf. Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005) ("[W]hen reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the evidence, and any reasonable inferences drawn from it, must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party."). "[T]he elements of an abuse of process claim are: (1) an ulterior purpose by the defendants other than resolving a legal dispute, and (2) a willful act in the use of the legal process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding." LaMantia v. Redisi, 118 Nev. 27, 30, 38 P.3d 877, 879 (2002).

2022Cf. Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005) ("[W]hen reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the evidence, and any reasonable inferences drawn from it, must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party."). "[T]he elements of an abuse of process claim are: (1) an ulterior purpose by the defendants other than resolving a legal dispute, and (2) a willful act in the use of the legal process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding." LaMantia v. Redisi, 118 Nev. 27, 30, 38 P.3d 877, 879 (2002).

711
ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jacksongreen
calctapp · 2001 · cited in 5 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2014–2017
2 sentences

2017LaMantia, 118 Nev. at 31, 38 P.3d at 880; ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson, 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 625, 644 (Ct. App. 2001) (explaining that abuse of process only arises when there is actual "use of the machinery of the legal system for an ulterior motive" SUPREME COURT (internal quotations omitted)); see also Tuck Beckstoffer Wines LLC v. OF NEVADA (0) I907A m 37 Ultimate Distribs., Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1020 (N.D.

2017LaMantia, 118 Nev. at 31 , 38 P.3d at 880 ; ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson, 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 625, 644 (Ct. App. 2001) (explaining that abuse of process only arises when there is actual "use of the machinery of the legal system for an ulterior motive" (internal quotations omitted)); see also Tuck Beckstoffer Wines LLC v. Ultimate Distribs., Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1020 (N.D.

55
Tuck Beckstoffer Wines LLC v. Ultimate Distributors, Inc.green
cand · 2010 · cited in 4 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2014–2017
2 sentences

2017LaMantia, 118 Nev. at 31, 38 P.3d at 880; ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson, 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 625, 644 (Ct. App. 2001) (explaining that abuse of process only arises when there is actual "use of the machinery of the legal system for an ulterior motive" SUPREME COURT (internal quotations omitted)); see also Tuck Beckstoffer Wines LLC v. OF NEVADA (0) I907A m 37 Ultimate Distribs., Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1020 (N.D.

2017LaMantia, 118 Nev. at 31 , 38 P.3d at 880 ; ComputerXpress, Inc. v. Jackson, 113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 625, 644 (Ct. App. 2001) (explaining that abuse of process only arises when there is actual "use of the machinery of the legal system for an ulterior motive" (internal quotations omitted)); see also Tuck Beckstoffer Wines LLC v. Ultimate Distribs., Inc., 682 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1020 (N.D.

44
Kovacs v. Acostagreen
nev · 1990 · cited in 4 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 1992–2015
2 sentences

2015SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 14 (0) 1947A 0 Redisi, 118 Nev. 27, 31 , 38 P.3d 877, 880 (2002); Posadas v. City of Reno, 109 Nev. 448, 457 , 851 P.2d 438, 444-45 (1993) (quoting Kovacs v. Acosta, 106 Nev. 57, 59 , 787 P.2d 368, 369 (1990)); see also Exec.

2015SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 14 (0) 1947A 0 Redisi, 118 Nev. 27, 31 , 38 P.3d 877, 880 (2002); Posadas v. City of Reno, 109 Nev. 448, 457 , 851 P.2d 438, 444-45 (1993) (quoting Kovacs v. Acosta, 106 Nev. 57, 59 , 787 P.2d 368, 369 (1990)); see also Exec.

34
Posadas v. City of Renogreen
nev · 1993 · cited in 2 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 14 (0) 1947A 0 Redisi, 118 Nev. 27, 31 , 38 P.3d 877, 880 (2002); Posadas v. City of Reno, 109 Nev. 448, 457 , 851 P.2d 438, 444-45 (1993) (quoting Kovacs v. Acosta, 106 Nev. 57, 59 , 787 P.2d 368, 369 (1990)); see also Exec.

2015SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 14 (0) 1947A 0 Redisi, 118 Nev. 27, 31 , 38 P.3d 877, 880 (2002); Posadas v. City of Reno, 109 Nev. 448, 457 , 851 P.2d 438, 444-45 (1993) (quoting Kovacs v. Acosta, 106 Nev. 57, 59 , 787 P.2d 368, 369 (1990)); see also Exec.

22
Wood v. Safeway, Inc.green
nev · 2005 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
2 sentences

2022Cf. Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005) ("[W]hen reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the evidence, and any reasonable inferences drawn from it, must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party."). "[T]he elements of an abuse of process claim are: (1) an ulterior purpose by the defendants other than resolving a legal dispute, and (2) a willful act in the use of the legal process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding." LaMantia v. Redisi, 118 Nev. 27, 30, 38 P.3d 877, 879 (2002).

2022Cf. Wood v. Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005) ("[W]hen reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the evidence, and any reasonable inferences drawn from it, must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party."). "[T]he elements of an abuse of process claim are: (1) an ulterior purpose by the defendants other than resolving a legal dispute, and (2) a willful act in the use of the legal process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding." LaMantia v. Redisi, 118 Nev. 27, 30, 38 P.3d 877, 879 (2002).

11
Nevada Credit Rating Bureau, Inc. v. Williamsgreen
nev · 1972 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015Credit Rating Bureau, Inc. v. Williams, 88 Nev. 601, 606 , 503 P.2d 9, 12 (1972).

2015Credit Rating Bureau, Inc. v. Williams, 88 Nev. 601, 606 , 503 P.2d 9, 12 (1972).

11
Bull v. McCuskeygreen
nev · 1980 · cited in 1 Nevada opinions naming this issue, 1986–1986
2 sentences

1986See Bull v. McCuskey, 96 Nev. 706 , 615 P.2d 957 (1980).

1986See Bull v. McCuskey, 96 Nev. 706 , 615 P.2d 957 (1980).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nevada. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Bobby Berosini, Ltd. v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals green
nev · 1998
1 sentence

2019Id.

12019–2019

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NV § Nev. Rev. Stat. § 18.110 (5) NV § Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.031 (5) NV § Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.032 (5) NV § Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.035 (5) NV § Nev. Rev. Stat. § 42.005 (5) NV § Nev. Rev. Stat. § 47.250 (5) NV § Nev. Rev. Stat. § 48.035 (5) USC § 26u.s.c.7431 (5) NV § Nev. Rev. Stat. § 18.010 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

OH 53 (1994–2025) MA 51 (1986–2026) CA 44 (1986–2026) NY 25 (1986–2026) CT 22 (1991–2025) PA 20 (2001–2025) CO 20 (1986–2026) TX 19 (1993–2025) SC 17 (1994–2026) NM 17 (1987–2024) NV 16 (1986–2022) IN 16 (1994–2025) AL 15 (1981–2024) ME 15 (1984–2023) IA 14 (1982–2021) NC 13 (1986–2025) MO 12 (1993–2022) MT 12 (2000–2024) MS 10 (1999–2025) WA 10 (2008–2026) AZ 10 (1982–2024) RI 8 (1989–2010) MI 8 (1984–2024) LA 8 (1993–2024) AR 8 (1993–2021) VA 8 (1989–2021) KY 7 (2013–2024) HI 7 (1990–2024) UT 7 (2004–2025) IL 7 (1996–2023) KS 6 (1988–2021) FL 6 (1984–2025) NJ 6 (1992–2026) WI 5 (1979–2026) AK 5 (1988–2025) TN 5 (2000–2020) DE 4 (2014–2024) ND 4 (2015–2020) OR 3 (1986–2023) OK 3 (2000–2020) SD 3 (1991–2022) NH 3 (1995–2019) MN 2 (1979–2014) NE 2 (1998–2025)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check