15 Alabama opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alabama 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 |
|---|---|---|
CC & J., INC. v. Hagoodgreen2 sentences2001Merely proceeding with a . . . complaint and later agreeing to dismiss the charge cannot constitute a wrongful use because: "`[ T]here is no liability where the defendant has done nothing other than carry out the process to its authorized conclusion, even though with bad intentions . . . . [I]t is what is done in the course of negotiation, rather than the issuance or any formal use of process itself, which constitutes the tort.' ". . . [The defendant] cannot be liable for an abuse of process claim unless [he] somehow acted outside the boundaries of legitimate procedure after the charge had bee 1999See, C.C. & J., Inc. v. Hagood, 711 So.2d 947, 951 (Ala.1998) ("any question about the initiation of a judicial proceeding is encompassed in a malicious prosecution claim, not an abuse-of-process claim"). | 4 | 6 |
Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. Hallgreen2 sentences1997See, e.g., Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 , 104 S.Ct. 1868 , 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). 2 With respect to the abuse of process claim, Edelman alleged: “Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to [the Kamilewicz action], it was improper for defendants to initiate discovery in that action until a discovery planning conference had been held. 1997See, e.g., Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408 , 104 S.Ct. 1868 , 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984). 2 With respect to the abuse of process claim, Edelman alleged: “Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure applicable to [the Kamilewicz action], it was improper for defendants to initiate discovery in that action until a discovery planning conference had been held. | 2 | 2 |
Ex Parte Rileygreen2 sentences1992See Ex parte Riley, 464 So.2d 92 (Ala.1985) (issues not argued in brief on appeal are deemed to be waived). . 1992Ex parte Riley, 464 So.2d 92 (Ala.1985) (issues not argued in brief on appeal are deemed to be waived). | 2 | 2 |
Preskitt v. Lyonsgreen2 sentences2009Although no Alabama case has directly addressed whether an administrative proceeding may give rise to an abuse-of-process claim, we note that, in the context of an abuse-of-process claim, our supreme court has stated: "Legal process has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990) as `a summons, writ, warrant, mandate, or other process issuing from a court. '" Preskitt v. Lyons, 865 So.2d 424, 430 (Ala.2003) (emphasis added). 2009Although no Alabama case has directly addressed whether an administrative proceeding may give rise to an abuse-of-process claim, we note that, in the context of an abuse-of-process claim, our supreme court has stated: “Legal process has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990) as ‘a summons, writ, warrant, mandate, or other process issuing from a court.’ ” Preskitt v. Lyons, 865 So.2d 424, 430 (Ala.2003) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Dd v. Cldgreen2 sentences2006"Specifically, the abuse of process claim [was] based on allegations that the third party [had] conspired with the wife to use the divorce action to establish that the husband was not the biological father of the child for the purpose of `depriving him of his . . . constitutionally protected liberty interest in his relationship with [the child]'; the invasion of privacy claim [was] based on allegations that the third party [had] `made repeated telephone calls to [the husband and wife's] residence for the purpose of interfering with [the husband's] effort to preserve the integrity of his family 2006"Specifically, the abuse of process claim [was] based on allegations that the third party [had] conspired with the wife to use the divorce action to establish that the husband was not the biological father of the child for the purpose of 'depriving him of his . . . constitutionally protected liberty interest in his relationship with [the child]'; the invasion of privacy claim [was] based on allegations that the third party [had] 'made repeated telephone calls to [the husband and wife's] residence for the purpose of interfering with [the husband's] effort to preserve the integrity of his family | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alabama. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
green
2 sentences1997As the United States Supreme Court noted in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, supra, “the constitutional touchstone remains whether the defendant purposefully established ‘[sufficient] contacts’ in the forum state,” so that it is foreseeable that that defendant could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there, 471 U.S. at 474 , 105 S.Ct. at 2183 . 1997As the United States Supreme Court noted in Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, supra, “the constitutional touchstone remains whether the defendant purposefully established ‘[sufficient] contacts’ in the forum state,” so that it is foreseeable that that defendant could reasonably anticipate being haled into court there, 471 U.S. at 474 , 105 S.Ct. at 2183 . | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Huffman v. State
green
1 sentence1999Huffman v. State, 706 So.2d 808 (Ala.Crim.App.1997). [5] Shoney's and Barnett also argue that evidence of the conviction was admissible to counter Barnett's claim of slander; however, Barnett withdrew that claim at trial. [6] Rule 401 reads: "`Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence." | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Alabama Power Co. v. Neighbors
green
1 sentence1999Neighbors, 402 So.2d at 962 . [3] Because we have determined that Hunter was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law on the abuse of process claim and that claim will not be submitted to a jury on the retrial of this case, Shoney's can be liable, if at all, only for Hunter's alleged malicious prosecution of Barnett. [4] However, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals has stated that it will use a broader interpretation of the term "dishonesty," under the new rules of evidence, apparently to include evidence of the convictions previously allowed for impeachment purposes under the former "moral | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Dempsey v. Denman
green
1 sentence1998In Dempsey v. Denman, 442 So.2d 63 (Ala.1983), our supreme court noted that in an abuse of process claim, it must be shown that the plaintiffs property was unlawfully interfered with under color of process. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Eidson v. Olin Corp.
green
1 sentence1993This Court resurrected Tarver in Higgins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 512 So.2d 766 , 768 (Ala. 1987), and buried it again in Eidson v. Olin Corp. , 527 So.2d 1283 , 1287-88 (Ala. 1988), where we cited the plaintiff's lack of evidence of wrongful use of process, not the existence of probable cause for the process, as the ground for holding that he could not recover on an abuse of process claim. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Tapscott v. Fowler
green
1 sentence1993This Court did refer to Tarver in Tapscott v. Fowler , 437 So.2d 116 , 119 (Ala. 1983), as an alternative ground for affirming the trial court's dismissal of an abuse of process claim. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Warwick Development Co., Inc. v. GV CORP.
green
2 sentences1993Later, however, this Court decided Warwick Development Co. v. GV Corp. , 469 So.2d 1270 , 1274 (Ala. 1985), in which we indicated that the defendant was liable for abuse of process, even though he had probable cause for initiating the process, because the "abuse of process rests on the wrongful use of the process after it has been issued." We further stated, in Warwick , that "[a]n abuse of process action 'presupposes an originally valid and regular process, duly and properly issued, and the validity of the process is not a defense to an action for its abuse.' " Id. at 1274 (quoting Rigsby , 4 1993Later, however, this Court decided Warwick Development Co. v. GV Corp. , 469 So.2d 1270 , 1274 (Ala. 1985), in which we indicated that the defendant was liable for abuse of process, even though he had probable cause for initiating the process, because the "abuse of process rests on the wrongful use of the process after it has been issued." We further stated, in Warwick , that "[a]n abuse of process action 'presupposes an originally valid and regular process, duly and properly issued, and the validity of the process is not a defense to an action for its abuse.' " Id. at 1274 (quoting Rigsby , 4 | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Farm Country Homes, Inc. v. Rigsby
green
1 sentence1993Later, however, this Court decided Warwick Development Co. v. GV Corp. , 469 So.2d 1270 , 1274 (Ala. 1985), in which we indicated that the defendant was liable for abuse of process, even though he had probable cause for initiating the process, because the "abuse of process rests on the wrongful use of the process after it has been issued." We further stated, in Warwick , that "[a]n abuse of process action 'presupposes an originally valid and regular process, duly and properly issued, and the validity of the process is not a defense to an action for its abuse.' " Id. at 1274 (quoting Rigsby , 4 | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Higgins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
green
1 sentence1993This Court resurrected Tarver in Higgins v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. , 512 So.2d 766 , 768 (Ala. 1987), and buried it again in Eidson v. Olin Corp. , 527 So.2d 1283 , 1287-88 (Ala. 1988), where we cited the plaintiff's lack of evidence of wrongful use of process, not the existence of probable cause for the process, as the ground for holding that he could not recover on an abuse of process claim. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Tarver v. Household Finance Corporation
green
2 sentences1983Tarver v. Household Finance Corp. , 291 Ala. 25 , 277 So.2d 330 (1973). 1983Tarver v. Household Finance Corp. , 291 Ala. 25 , 277 So.2d 330 (1973). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Blair v. Oesterlein MacHine Co.
green
2 sentences1981Blair v Oesterlein Machine Co. , 275 U.S. 220 , 48 S.Ct. 87 , 72 L.Ed. 249 (1927) Co-appellants, Robert and Ray, appeal from the judgment on the abuse of process claim on two bases. 1981Blair v Oesterlein Machine Co. , 275 U.S. 220 , 48 S.Ct. 87 , 72 L.Ed. 249 (1927) Co-appellants, Robert and Ray, appeal from the judgment on the abuse of process claim on two bases. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.