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.
7 Utah opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Utah 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hatch v. Davisgreen2 sentences2020“A claim for abuse of process requires the plaintiff to show (1) that the defendant used legal process, (2) to accomplish an improper purpose or purpose for which that process was not designed, (3) causing the plaintiff’s harm.” Mountain West Surgical Center, LLC v. Hospital Corp. of Utah, 2007 UT 92, ¶ 11 , 173 P.3d 1276 . ¶34 To succeed on an abuse of process claim, the plaintiff “must allege both an ulterior purpose and a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding.” Hatch v. Davis, 2006 UT 44, ¶ 36 , 147 P.3d 383 (quotation simplified). 2020“A claim for abuse of process requires the plaintiff to show (1) that the defendant used legal process, (2) to accomplish an improper purpose or purpose for which that process was not designed, (3) causing the plaintiff’s harm.” Mountain West Surgical Center, LLC v. Hospital Corp. of Utah, 2007 UT 92, ¶ 11 , 173 P.3d 1276 . ¶34 To succeed on an abuse of process claim, the plaintiff “must allege both an ulterior purpose and a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding.” Hatch v. Davis, 2006 UT 44, ¶ 36 , 147 P.3d 383 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2 |
Kool v. Leegreen2 sentences2005Id. ¶ 66 In this case, the district court dismissed Tobias and Feld’s abuse of process counterclaim at least in part on the ground that they had yet to prevail in the lawsuit filed by ADC. 2004Accordingly, it is nee-essary to determine whether Plaintiff accurately stated the requisite elements of an abuse of process claim, and if so, whether Defendant adequately pleaded these elements in his counterclaim. 133 "[Albuse of process applies to '[olne who uses a legal process ... against another primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed. " Gilbert v. Ince, 1999 UT 65,¶ 17 , 981 P.2d 841 (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 682, at 474 (1997)); see also Crease v. Pleasant Grove City, 30 Utah 2d 451 , 519 P.2d 888, 890 (19 | 1 | 2 |
Templeton Feed & Grain v. Ralston Purina Co.green1 sentence2025See id. | 1 | 1 |
Rusakiewicz v. Lowegreen1 sentence2020See Rusakiewcz, 556 F.3d at 1104 (“[F]iling a lawsuit and performing ordinary acts in the regular course of the legal proceedings is not abuse of process even if the goals of the lawsuit are nefarious and improper.”). | 1 | 1 |
Bennett v. Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonoughgreen1 sentence2020Moreover, even assuming Auto-Owners later initiated the Defamation Suit with the ulterior motive of leveraging a settlement in the Flooding Suit, such an ulterior motive is insufficient to give rise to an abuse of process claim under the circumstances presented here because “there is no action for abuse of process when the process is used for the purpose for which it is intended, but there is an incidental motive of spite or an ulterior purpose of benefit to the defendant.” Bennett, 2003 UT 9, ¶ 49 (quotation simplified). ¶39 We are similarly unpersuaded by Eskamani’s assertion that Auto-Owner | 1 | 1 |
Hatch v. Davisgreen2 sentences2013Compare id. 1% 15-16 (affirming the dismissal of an abuse of process claim in which the defendant allegedly filed a false counterclaim and gave false testimony, causing the plaintiff to incur attorney fees, because the complaint had not alleged an "ulterior purpose or collateral advantage that [the defendant] hoped to gain"), with Hatch I, 2004 UT App 378, 135 , 102 P.3d 774 (holding that the defendant had pleaded an "ulterior motive or purpose" where the plaintiff had initiated actions against the defendant "in federal and state court ... in order to ... intimidate the residents of the town a 2013Compare id. 1% 15-16 (affirming the dismissal of an abuse of process claim in which the defendant allegedly filed a false counterclaim and gave false testimony, causing the plaintiff to incur attorney fees, because the complaint had not alleged an "ulterior purpose or collateral advantage that [the defendant] hoped to gain"), with Hatch I, 2004 UT App 378, 135 , 102 P.3d 774 (holding that the defendant had pleaded an "ulterior motive or purpose" where the plaintiff had initiated actions against the defendant "in federal and state court ... in order to ... intimidate the residents of the town a | 1 | 1 |
Crease v. Pleasant Grove Citygreen2 sentences2004Accordingly, it is nee-essary to determine whether Plaintiff accurately stated the requisite elements of an abuse of process claim, and if so, whether Defendant adequately pleaded these elements in his counterclaim. 133 "[Albuse of process applies to '[olne who uses a legal process ... against another primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed. " Gilbert v. Ince, 1999 UT 65,¶ 17 , 981 P.2d 841 (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 682, at 474 (1997)); see also Crease v. Pleasant Grove City, 30 Utah 2d 451 , 519 P.2d 888, 890 (19 2004Accordingly, it is nee-essary to determine whether Plaintiff accurately stated the requisite elements of an abuse of process claim, and if so, whether Defendant adequately pleaded these elements in his counterclaim. 133 "[Albuse of process applies to '[olne who uses a legal process ... against another primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed. " Gilbert v. Ince, 1999 UT 65,¶ 17 , 981 P.2d 841 (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 682, at 474 (1997)); see also Crease v. Pleasant Grove City, 30 Utah 2d 451 , 519 P.2d 888, 890 (19 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Utah. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Eskamani v. Auto-Owners Ins.
green
1 sentence2020Because the purpose of a settlement offer is to end 20190450-CA 16 2020 UT App 137 Eskamani v. Auto-Owners Ins. the case on the terms of the offering party, a settlement offer containing a non-disparagement clause does not rise to the level of a willful act independent of the legal process giving rise to an abuse of process claim. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Mountain West Surgical Center, L.L.C. v. Hospital Corp. of Utah
green
2 sentences2020“A claim for abuse of process requires the plaintiff to show (1) that the defendant used legal process, (2) to accomplish an improper purpose or purpose for which that process was not designed, (3) causing the plaintiff’s harm.” Mountain West Surgical Center, LLC v. Hospital Corp. of Utah, 2007 UT 92, ¶ 11 , 173 P.3d 1276 . ¶34 To succeed on an abuse of process claim, the plaintiff “must allege both an ulterior purpose and a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding.” Hatch v. Davis, 2006 UT 44, ¶ 36 , 147 P.3d 383 (quotation simplified). 2020“A claim for abuse of process requires the plaintiff to show (1) that the defendant used legal process, (2) to accomplish an improper purpose or purpose for which that process was not designed, (3) causing the plaintiff’s harm.” Mountain West Surgical Center, LLC v. Hospital Corp. of Utah, 2007 UT 92, ¶ 11 , 173 P.3d 1276 . ¶34 To succeed on an abuse of process claim, the plaintiff “must allege both an ulterior purpose and a willful act in the use of the process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding.” Hatch v. Davis, 2006 UT 44, ¶ 36 , 147 P.3d 383 (quotation simplified). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Anderson Development Co. v. Tobias
green
2 sentences2008Co. v. Tobias, 2005 UT 36, ¶ 65 , 116 P.3d 323 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 682 emt. a (1977) ("The gravamen of [an abuse of process claim] ... is not the wrongful procurement of legal process or the wrongful initiation of ... civil proceedings; it is the misuse of process, no matter how properly attained, for any purpose other than that which it was designed to accomplish."); W. 2008Co. v. Tobias, 2005 UT 36, ¶ 65 , 116 P.3d 323 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 682 emt. a (1977) ("The gravamen of [an abuse of process claim] ... is not the wrongful procurement of legal process or the wrongful initiation of ... civil proceedings; it is the misuse of process, no matter how properly attained, for any purpose other than that which it was designed to accomplish."); W. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Early Detection Center, PC v. New York Life Insurance
green
1 sentence2006For example, the plaintiff's abuse of process claim in HWarly Detection Center, PC v. New York Life Insurance Co. was dismissed because the acts "alleged as the irregular acts" were no more than "the filing of a 'groundless' suit." 157 Mich.App. 618 , 408 N.W.2d 830, 835 (1986). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Gilbert v. Ince
green
2 sentences2004Accordingly, it is nee-essary to determine whether Plaintiff accurately stated the requisite elements of an abuse of process claim, and if so, whether Defendant adequately pleaded these elements in his counterclaim. 133 "[Albuse of process applies to '[olne who uses a legal process ... against another primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed. " Gilbert v. Ince, 1999 UT 65,¶ 17 , 981 P.2d 841 (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 682, at 474 (1997)); see also Crease v. Pleasant Grove City, 30 Utah 2d 451 , 519 P.2d 888, 890 (19 2004Accordingly, it is nee-essary to determine whether Plaintiff accurately stated the requisite elements of an abuse of process claim, and if so, whether Defendant adequately pleaded these elements in his counterclaim. 133 "[Albuse of process applies to '[olne who uses a legal process ... against another primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed. " Gilbert v. Ince, 1999 UT 65,¶ 17 , 981 P.2d 841 (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 682, at 474 (1997)); see also Crease v. Pleasant Grove City, 30 Utah 2d 451 , 519 P.2d 888, 890 (19 | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.