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.
5 Colorado opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
Colorado Community Bank v. Hoffmangreen2 sentences2025The improper use at the heart of an abuse of process claim “is the use of a legal proceeding primarily to accomplish a purpose that the proceeding was not designed to achieve.” Id. ¶ 21 A plausible claim for relief in an abuse of process action must allege “not only proof of an ulterior motive but proof of willful actions by the defendant in the use of process which are not proper in the regular conduct of a proceeding.” Id.; Trujillo, ¶ 20. “[I]f the action is confined to its regular and legitimate function in relation to the cause of action stated in the complaint[,] there is no abuse, even 2025But “[i]f the action is confined to its regular and legitimate function in relation to the cause of action stated in the complaint[,] there is no abuse, even if the plaintiff had an ulterior motive in bringing the action or if he knowingly brought suit upon an unfounded claim.” Colo. Cmty. Bank v. Hoffman, 2013 COA 146, ¶ 37 (quoting 33 Sterenbuch v. Goss, 266 P.3d 428, 439 (Colo. App. 2011)). | 2 | 3 |
Sterenbuch v. Gossgreen2 sentences2025But “[i]f the action is confined to its regular and legitimate function in relation to the cause of action stated in the complaint[,] there is no abuse, even if the plaintiff had an ulterior motive in bringing the action or if he knowingly brought suit upon an unfounded claim.” Colo. Cmty. Bank v. Hoffman, 2013 COA 146, ¶ 37 (quoting 33 Sterenbuch v. Goss, 266 P.3d 428, 439 (Colo. App. 2011)). 2019Put another way, “[i]f the action is confined to its regular and legitimate function in relation to the cause of action stated in the complaint[,] there is no abuse, even if the plaintiff had an ulterior motive in bringing the action or if he knowingly brought suit upon an unfounded claim.” Colo. Cmty. Bank v. Hoffman, 2013 COA 146, ¶ 37 (quoting Sterenbuch v. Goss, 266 P.3d 428, 439 (Colo. App. 2011)); see W. | 2 | 2 |
Institute for Professional Development v. Regis Collegegreen2 sentences2006States Leasing Co., 32 Colo.App. 248, 252 , 510 P.2d 897, 899 (1973); see also Inst. for Prof'l Dev. v. Regis Coll., 536 F.Supp. 632, 635 (D.Colo.1982) (quoting 1 Am.Jur.2d Abuse of Process § 13 (1962)) (“If the action is confined to its regular and legitimate function in relation to the cause of action stated in the complaint there is no abuse, even if the plaintiff had an ulterior motive in bringing the action or if he knowingly brought suit upon an unfounded claim.”). 1994In Institute for Professional Development v. Regis College, supra, 536 F.Supp. 632, 635 , it was explained that: If the action is confined to its regular and legitimate function in relation to the cause of action stated in the complaint there is no abuse, even if the plaintiff had an ulterior motive in bringing the action or if he knowingly brought suit upon an unfounded claim. | 1 | 2 |
Walker v. Van Laninghamgreen2 sentences2025The improper use at the heart of an abuse of process claim “is the use of a legal proceeding primarily to accomplish a purpose that the proceeding was not designed to achieve.” Id. ¶ 21 A plausible claim for relief in an abuse of process action must allege “not only proof of an ulterior motive but proof of willful actions by the defendant in the use of process which are not proper in the regular conduct of a proceeding.” Id.; Trujillo, ¶ 20. “[I]f the action is confined to its regular and legitimate function in relation to the cause of action stated in the complaint[,] there is no abuse, even 2025Compare Walker, 148 P.3d at 394-96 (Even with an alleged ulterior motive, defendants’ filing of complaints under an animal control ordinance was “a proper use of the process mandated by the Ordinance” as the filing of complaints was 11 envisioned by the proceedings and “[a]ny advantages that they may have obtained as a result of [plaintiff’s] convictions for violating the Ordinance were regular and legitimate goals which the proceedings were designed to achieve.”), and James H. | 1 | 1 |
v. Parrishgreen1 sentence2025The improper use at the heart of an abuse of process claim “is the use of a legal proceeding primarily to accomplish a purpose that the proceeding was not designed to achieve.” Id. ¶ 21 A plausible claim for relief in an abuse of process action must allege “not only proof of an ulterior motive but proof of willful actions by the defendant in the use of process which are not proper in the regular conduct of a proceeding.” Id.; Trujillo, ¶ 20. “[I]f the action is confined to its regular and legitimate function in relation to the cause of action stated in the complaint[,] there is no abuse, even | 1 | 1 |
Aztec Sound Corp. v. Western States Leasing Co.green2 sentences2006States Leasing Co., 32 Colo.App. 248, 252 , 510 P.2d 897, 899 (1973); see also Inst. for Prof'l Dev. v. Regis Coll., 536 F.Supp. 632, 635 (D.Colo.1982) (quoting 1 Am.Jur.2d Abuse of Process § 13 (1962)) (“If the action is confined to its regular and legitimate function in relation to the cause of action stated in the complaint there is no abuse, even if the plaintiff had an ulterior motive in bringing the action or if he knowingly brought suit upon an unfounded claim.”). 2006States Leasing Co., 32 Colo.App. 248, 252 , 510 P.2d 897, 899 (1973); see also Inst. for Prof'l Dev. v. Regis Coll., 536 F.Supp. 632, 635 (D.Colo.1982) (quoting 1 Am.Jur.2d Abuse of Process § 13 (1962)) (“If the action is confined to its regular and legitimate function in relation to the cause of action stated in the complaint there is no abuse, even if the plaintiff had an ulterior motive in bringing the action or if he knowingly brought suit upon an unfounded claim.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.