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.
8 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2017 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Werner v. Plater-Zyberkgreen2 sentences2017However, allegations of malicious prosecution invoke Pennsylvania’s statutory law in the form of the wrongful use of civil proceedings statute or ‘Dragonetti Act.’ §§ 42 Pa.C.S.A. 8351-8355.” Werner v. Plater-Zyberk, 799 A.2d 776, 785 (Pa. Super. 2002). 2017Abuse of process is a state common law claim and it encompasses “the improper use of process after it has been issued, that is, a perversion of it.” Id. at 188 ; see also Werner v. Plater-Zyberk, 799 A.2d 776, 785 (Pa. Super. 2002). 3 It requires “[s]ome definite act or threat not authorized by the process, or aimed at an objective not legitimate in the use of the process...[;] there is no liability where the defendant has done nothing more than carry out the process to its authorized conclusion, even though with bad intentions.” Shaffer v. Stewart, 326 Pa.Super. 135 , 473 *532 A.2d 1017, 1019 | 4 | 4 |
Matter of Coxgreen1 sentence2017Abuse of process is a state common law claim and it encompasses “the improper use of process after it has been issued, that is, a perversion of it.” Id. at 188 ; see also Werner v. Plater-Zyberk, 799 A.2d 776, 785 (Pa. Super. 2002). 3 It requires “[s]ome definite act or threat not authorized by the process, or aimed at an objective not legitimate in the use of the process...[;] there is no liability where the defendant has done nothing more than carry out the process to its authorized conclusion, even though with bad intentions.” Shaffer v. Stewart, 326 Pa.Super. 135 , 473 *532 A.2d 1017, 1019 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sabella v. Estate of Milides
green
2 sentences2017Abuse of process is a state common law claim and it encompasses “the improper use of process after it has been issued, that is, a perversion of it.” Id. at 188 ; see also Werner v. Plater-Zyberk, 799 A.2d 776, 785 (Pa. Super. 2002). 3 It requires “[s]ome definite act or threat not authorized by the process, or aimed at an objective not legitimate in the use of the process...[;] there is no liability where the defendant has done nothing more than carry out the process to its authorized conclusion, even though with bad intentions.” Shaffer v. Stewart, 326 Pa.Super. 135 , 473 *532 A.2d 1017, 1019 2017In contrast, “[m]alicious use of civil process has to do with the wrongful initiation of such process.” Sabella, 992 A.2d at 188 . “[A]llegations of malicious prosecution invoke Pennsylvania’s statutory law in the form of [the] wrongful use of civil proceedings statute or ‘Dragonetti Act.’ ” Werner, 799 A.2d at 785 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Shaffer v. Stewart
green
1 sentence2017Abuse of process is a state common law claim and it encompasses “the improper use of process after it has been issued, that is, a perversion of it.” Id. at 188 ; see also Werner v. Plater-Zyberk, 799 A.2d 776, 785 (Pa. Super. 2002). 3 It requires “[s]ome definite act or threat not authorized by the process, or aimed at an objective not legitimate in the use of the process...[;] there is no liability where the defendant has done nothing more than carry out the process to its authorized conclusion, even though with bad intentions.” Shaffer v. Stewart, 326 Pa.Super. 135 , 473 *532 A.2d 1017, 1019 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Cellucci v. General Motors Corp.
green
2 sentences2007Id., at 418 , 706 A.2d at 811 . 2007Id., at 418 , 706 A.2d at 811 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Rosen v. American Bank of Rolla
green
1 sentence2002Rosen, 627 A.2d at 192 . ¶ 16 Abuse of process is a state common law claim. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Hughes v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp
green
2 sentences2000In Holmes v. Schneider Power Corporation, 628 F.Supp. 937 (W.D.Pa.1986), aff'd, 806 F.2d 252 (3d Cir.1986) 15 the. federal district court rejected the argument that a state common law claim for wrongful discharge could be made by simply relying upon OSHA. 2000In Holmes v. Schneider Power Corporation, 628 F.Supp. 937 (W.D.Pa.1986), aff'd, 806 F.2d 252 (3d Cir.1986) [15] the federal district court rejected the argument that a state common law claim for wrongful discharge could be made by simply relying upon OSHA. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Holmes v. Schneider Power Corp.
green
2 sentences2000In Holmes v. Schneider Power Corporation, 628 F.Supp. 937 (W.D.Pa.1986), aff'd, 806 F.2d 252 (3d Cir.1986) 15 the. federal district court rejected the argument that a state common law claim for wrongful discharge could be made by simply relying upon OSHA. 2000In Holmes v. Schneider Power Corporation, 628 F.Supp. 937 (W.D.Pa.1986), aff'd, 806 F.2d 252 (3d Cir.1986) [15] the federal district court rejected the argument that a state common law claim for wrongful discharge could be made by simply relying upon OSHA. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon
green
2 sentences1994The issue before the United States Supreme Court in Ingersoll-Rand was whether ERISA “pre-empts a state common law claim that an employee was unlawfully discharged to prevent his attainment of benefits under a plan covered by ERISA.” Id. 498 U.S. at 135 , 111 S.Ct. at 481 . 1994The issue before the United States Supreme Court in Ingersoll-Rand was whether ERISA “pre-empts a state common law claim that an employee was unlawfully discharged to prevent his attainment of benefits under a plan covered by ERISA.” Id. 498 U.S. at 135 , 111 S.Ct. at 481 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Kosor v. Harleysville Mutual Insurance
green
1 sentence1994The issue before the United States Supreme Court in Ingersoll-Rand was whether ERISA “pre-empts a state common law claim that an employee was unlawfully discharged to prevent his attainment of benefits under a plan covered by ERISA.” Id. 498 U.S. at 135 , 111 S.Ct. at 481 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
green
2 sentences1994Noting that the pre-emption clause of Section 514(a) is conspicuously broad, the Court stated that “[a] law ‘relates to’ an employee benefit plan, in the normal sense of the phrase, if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan,” id. at 139 , 111 S.Ct. at 483 [quoting Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96-97 , 103 S.Ct. 2890, 2900 , 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983)]. 1994Noting that the pre-emption clause of Section 514(a) is conspicuously broad, the Court stated that “[a] law ‘relates to’ an employee benefit plan, in the normal sense of the phrase, if it has a connection with or reference to such a plan,” id. at 139 , 111 S.Ct. at 483 [quoting Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96-97 , 103 S.Ct. 2890, 2900 , 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983)]. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.