abuse of process claim in Rhode Island

2010An abuse-of-process claim requires proof "(1) that the defendant instituted proceedings or process against the plaintiff and (2) that the defendant used these proceedings for an ulterior or wrongful purpose that the proceedings were not designed to accomplish.” Fiorenzano v. Lima, 982 A.2d 585, 590 (R.I.2009) (quoting Palazzo v. Alves, 944 A.2d 144, 154 (R.I.2008)).

2010This property currently houses the Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy. [6] In 2001, Karousos's claim against Leonard Decof was dismissed. [7] An abuse-of-process claim requires proof "(1) that the defendant instituted proceedings or process against the plaintiff and (2) that the defendant used these proceedings for an ulterior or wrongful purpose that the proceedings were not designed to accomplish." Fiorenzano v. Lima, 982 A.2d 585, 590 (R.I. 2009) (quoting Palazzo v. Alves, 944 A.2d 144, 154 (R.I.2008)).

2009To prevail on an abuse of process claim, a plaintiff must prove: “(1) that the defendant instituted proceedings or process against the plaintiff and (2) that the defendant used these proceedings for an ulterior or wrongful purpose that the proceedings were not designed to accomplish.” Palazzo, 944 A.2d at 154 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Butera, 798 A.2d at 353 .

2008As we have previously stated, the “gist of an abuse-of-process claim is the misuse of legal process to obtain an advantage, ‘not properly involved in the proceeding itself * * *. [However], even a pure spite motive is not sufficient where process is used only to accomplish the result for which it was created.’ ” Butera, 798 A.2d at 354 (quoting Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 121 at 897 (W.

2008An abuse of process claim arises "when a legal proceeding, although set in motion in proper form, becomes perverted to accomplish an ulterior or a wrongful purpose for which it was not designed." Clyne v. Doyle , 740 A.2d 781 , 783 (R.I. 1999); Hillside Assocs. v. Stravato , 642 A.2d 664 , 667 (R.I. 1994).

2003“To show an abuse of process, [the husband] must demonstrate that ‘a legal proceeding, although set in motion in proper form, becomes perverted to accomplish an ulteri- or or a wrongful purpose for which it was not designed.’” Toste Farm Corp. v. Hadbury, Inc., 798 A.2d 901, 907 (R.I.2002) (quoting Clyne v. Doyle, 740 A.2d 781, 788 (R.I.1999)).

2010An abuse-of-process claim requires proof "(1) that the defendant instituted proceedings or process against the plaintiff and (2) that the defendant used these proceedings for an ulterior or wrongful purpose that the proceedings were not designed to accomplish.” Fiorenzano v. Lima, 982 A.2d 585, 590 (R.I.2009) (quoting Palazzo v. Alves, 944 A.2d 144, 154 (R.I.2008)).

2010This property currently houses the Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy. [6] In 2001, Karousos's claim against Leonard Decof was dismissed. [7] An abuse-of-process claim requires proof "(1) that the defendant instituted proceedings or process against the plaintiff and (2) that the defendant used these proceedings for an ulterior or wrongful purpose that the proceedings were not designed to accomplish." Fiorenzano v. Lima, 982 A.2d 585, 590 (R.I. 2009) (quoting Palazzo v. Alves, 944 A.2d 144, 154 (R.I.2008)).

2003“To show an abuse of process, [the husband] must demonstrate that ‘a legal proceeding, although set in motion in proper form, becomes perverted to accomplish an ulteri- or or a wrongful purpose for which it was not designed.’” Toste Farm Corp. v. Hadbury, Inc., 798 A.2d 901, 907 (R.I.2002) (quoting Clyne v. Doyle, 740 A.2d 781, 788 (R.I.1999)).

1989Considering first the abuse of process claim, O’Donnell failed to introduce any evidence that Baker had used a legal procedure to accomplish “an ulterior or wrongful purpose for which it was not designed.” Nagy v. McBurney, 120 R.I. 925, 934 , 392 A.2d 365, 370 (1978).

1989Considering first the abuse of process claim, O’Donnell failed to introduce any evidence that Baker had used a legal procedure to accomplish “an ulterior or wrongful purpose for which it was not designed.” Nagy v. McBurney, 120 R.I. 925, 934 , 392 A.2d 365, 370 (1978).