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.
9 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1998–2024 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania 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 |
|---|---|---|
Villani v. Seibert Appeal of: Seibertgreen2 sentences2024See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8354(3) (lack of probable cause for action is element of Dragonetti Act claim); Pa.R.Civ.P. 1023.1, Note (describing the Act as providing “additional relief from dilatory or frivolous proceedings”); Villani v. Seibert, 159 A.3d 478 , 491 (Pa. 2017) (stating that the Act “manifests a legislative purpose to compensate victims of frivolous and abusive litigation”); Stone Crushed Partnership v. Kassab Archbold Jackson & O’Brien, 908 A.2d 875 , 877 n.1 (Pa. 2006) (providing that the Act was enacted “[i]n response to frivolous lawsuits”). 2024See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8354(3) (lack of probable cause for action is element of Dragonetti Act claim); Pa.R.Civ.P. 1023.1, Note (describing the Act as providing “additional relief from dilatory or frivolous proceedings”); Villani v. Seibert, 159 A.3d 478, 491 (Pa. 2017) (stating that the Act “manifests a legislative purpose to compensate victims of frivolous and abusive litigation”); Stone Crushed Partnership v. Kassab Archbold Jackson & O’Brien, 908 A.2d 875 , 877 n.1 (Pa. 2006) (providing that the Act was enacted “[i]n response to frivolous lawsuits”). | 1 | 1 |
Electronic Laboratory Supply Co. v. Cullengreen1 sentence2019Supply Co. v. Cullen , 712 A.2d 304 , 311 (Pa. Super. 1998) ("settlement agreements are often not considered favorable termination for purposes of a [Dragonetti Act claim]"). | 1 | 1 |
U.S. Bank, N.A. Ex Rel. Bank of America, N.A. v. Pautenisgreen2 sentences2017See Order, 9/16/2015. 8 Upon remand, RX Billing may seek permission to file an amended complaint in order to raise a Dragonetti Act claim. - 15 - J-A14027-16 advisory opinion is one which is unnecessary to decide the issue before the court, and … the courts of this Commonwealth are precluded from issuing such advisory opinions.”); U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Pautenis, 118 A.3d 386, 403 (Pa. Super. 2015) (same). 2017See Order, 9/16/2015. 8 Upon remand, RX Billing may seek permission to file an amended complaint in order to raise a Dragonetti Act claim. - 15 - J-A14027-16 advisory opinion is one which is unnecessary to decide the issue before the court, and … the courts of this Commonwealth are precluded from issuing such advisory opinions.”); U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Pautenis, 118 A.3d 386, 403 (Pa. Super. 2015) (same). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Werner v. Plater-Zyberk
green
2 sentences2017In this regard, Appellants quote Werner v. Plater-Zyberk, 799 A.2d 776 (Pa. Super. 2002), as follows: [The Dragonetti Act defendant] argue[s] that [the plaintiffs] interests would be vindicated adequately via sanctions imposed by the federal district court. 2017In this regard, Appellants quote Werner v. Plater-Zyberk, 799 A.2d 776 (Pa. Super. 2002), as follows: [The Dragonetti Act defendant] argue[s] that [the plaintiff‟s] interests would be vindicated adequately via sanctions imposed by the federal district court. | 2 | 2006–2017 |
Stone Crushed Partnership v. Kassab Archbold Jackson & O'Brien
green
2 sentences2024See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8354(3) (lack of probable cause for action is element of Dragonetti Act claim); Pa.R.Civ.P. 1023.1, Note (describing the Act as providing “additional relief from dilatory or frivolous proceedings”); Villani v. Seibert, 159 A.3d 478 , 491 (Pa. 2017) (stating that the Act “manifests a legislative purpose to compensate victims of frivolous and abusive litigation”); Stone Crushed Partnership v. Kassab Archbold Jackson & O’Brien, 908 A.2d 875 , 877 n.1 (Pa. 2006) (providing that the Act was enacted “[i]n response to frivolous lawsuits”). 2024See 42 Pa.C.S. § 8354(3) (lack of probable cause for action is element of Dragonetti Act claim); Pa.R.Civ.P. 1023.1, Note (describing the Act as providing “additional relief from dilatory or frivolous proceedings”); Villani v. Seibert, 159 A.3d 478, 491 (Pa. 2017) (stating that the Act “manifests a legislative purpose to compensate victims of frivolous and abusive litigation”); Stone Crushed Partnership v. Kassab Archbold Jackson & O’Brien, 908 A.2d 875 , 877 n.1 (Pa. 2006) (providing that the Act was enacted “[i]n response to frivolous lawsuits”). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Cabot Oil v. Speer, C.
green
2 sentences2023Id., at 1197-98 . 2023Id., at 1197-98 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Kit v. Mitchell
green
1 sentence2019As noted above, in order to prove his Dragonetti Act claim against Boghossian, Plaintiff was required to show that Boghossian acted "in a grossly negligent manner or without probable cause[.]" Kit , 771 A.2d at 819 , quoting 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8351(a)(1). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Gentzler v. Atlee
green
2 sentences2010Legal Discussion A. As the Representatives of Their Client, the Martin Attorneys Properly Performed Their Functions As Advisors, Advocates, Negotiators and Evaluators of the Legal Rights and Obligations of Deborah Hamilton The liability of an attorney in a Dragonetti Act claim is grounded in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, §674, comment d, which has been repeatedly cited by our Honorable Superior Court, e.g., Gentzler v. Atlee, 443 Pa. Super. 128 , 660 A.2d 1378 (1995); Z.H. 2010Legal Discussion A. As the Representatives of Their Client, the Martin Attorneys Properly Performed Their Functions As Advisors, Advocates, Negotiators and Evaluators of the Legal Rights and Obligations of Deborah Hamilton The liability of an attorney in a Dragonetti Act claim is grounded in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, §674, comment d, which has been repeatedly cited by our Honorable Superior Court, e.g., Gentzler v. Atlee, 443 Pa. Super. 128 , 660 A.2d 1378 (1995); Z.H. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Shaffer v. Stewart
green
2 sentences2010Meiksin v. Howard Hanna Company Inc., 404 Pa. Super. 417 , 590 A.2d 1303 (1991); Shaffer v. Stewart, 326 Pa. Super. 135 , 473 A.2d 1017 (1984). 2010Meiksin v. Howard Hanna Company Inc., 404 Pa. Super. 417 , 590 A.2d 1303 (1991); Shaffer v. Stewart, 326 Pa. Super. 135 , 473 A.2d 1017 (1984). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Meiksin v. Howard Hanna Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2010Meiksin v. Howard Hanna Company Inc., 404 Pa. Super. 417 , 590 A.2d 1303 (1991); Shaffer v. Stewart, 326 Pa. Super. 135 , 473 A.2d 1017 (1984). 2010Meiksin v. Howard Hanna Company Inc., 404 Pa. Super. 417 , 590 A.2d 1303 (1991); Shaffer v. Stewart, 326 Pa. Super. 135 , 473 A.2d 1017 (1984). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Shiner v. Moriarty
green
2 sentences2006The Werner court explained the difference between allowing a Dragonetti Act claim to be heard in a case involving an abuse of process centered on a civil RICO claim in federal courts and denying that an abuse of process claim be heard when the underlying federal court claim is based on the Bankruptcy Code. “[The] Bankruptcy Code demonstrates Congress’s intent to create a whole system under federal control therefore mandating that the adjustment of rights and duties within the bankruptcy process itself is uniquely and exclusively federal, thereby precluding state law remedies for abuse of its p 2006The Werner court explained the difference between allowing a Dragonetti Act claim to be heard in a case involving an abuse of process centered on a civil RICO claim in federal courts and denying that an abuse of process claim be heard when the underlying federal court claim is based on the Bankruptcy Code. “[The] Bankruptcy Code demonstrates Congress’s intent to create a whole system under federal control therefore mandating that the adjustment of rights and duties within the bankruptcy process itself is uniquely and exclusively federal, thereby precluding state law remedies for abuse of its p | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Insurance Co. of Evanston v. Bowers
green
2 sentences2002Id. at 314-15 . 5 . 2002Id. at 314-15 . 5 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Weiss v. Equibank
green
2 sentences1998Weiss v. Equibank, 313 Pa.Super. 446 , 460 A.2d 271 (1983). 1998Weiss v. Equibank, 313 Pa.Super. 446 , 460 A.2d 271 (1983). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.