Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Nienstedt v. Wetzel, 651 P.2d 876.

54 citing documents.

ANDRICH v. BRENNAN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
ANDRICH v. BRENNAN Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
Abuse of Process Claims ¶12 A party who uses a legal process “primarily to accomplish a purpose for which it is not designed[] is subject to liability to the other for harm caused by the abuse of process.” (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 682 (1977)).
Jeannine Liberti v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Jeannine Liberti v. City of Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2024
Potter v. Ehrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Potter v. Ehrich Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶ 27 (App. 2020) () (“The elements of abuse of process are ‘(1) a willful act in the use of [a] judicial process; (2) for an ulterior purpose not proper in the regular conduct of the proceedings.’”).
Brevetti v. Brevetti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Brevetti v. Brevetti Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Liberti v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Liberti v. Scottsdale Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Vesper v. Lindfors Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Vesper v. Lindfors Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
The elements of abuse of process are “(1) a willful act in the use of [a] judicial process; (2) for an ulterior purpose not proper in the regular conduct of the proceedings.” ¶ 27 (App. 2020) ().
Trabucco v. Cogan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
Trabucco v. Cogan Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶41 “The essential elements of the tort of abuse of process are an ulterior purpose and a wilful act in the use of judicial process not proper in the regular conduct of the proceeding.” Bird, 128 Ariz. at 602 (citations omitted); (requiring “(1) a willful act in the use of judicial process; (2) for an ulterior purpose not proper in the regular conduct of the proceedings”).
Fappani v. Bratton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Fappani v. Bratton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
(quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 682 (1977) ("Restatement")).
Minotto v. Van Cott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Minotto v. Van Cott Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
see also Crackel v. Allstate Ins.
Rhythm v. Beckwith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Rhythm v. Beckwith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
Chilton v. Center for Biological Diversity, Inc. 148 P.3d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2006
“Whether punitive damages are excessive is based solely on the circumstances of each case.”
Crackel v. Allstate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
Crackel v. Allstate Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
¶11 The elements of an abuse-of-process claim are “(1) a willful act in the use of judicial process; (2) for an ulterior purpose not proper in the regular conduct of the proceedings.”
Giles v. Hill Lewis Marce 988 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
Giles v. Hill Lewis Marce 988 P.2d 143 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1999
see also Restatement (Second) of Torts § 682 (1977).
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of Corrections 934 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. v. Department of Corrections 934 P.2d 801 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn 907 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Hyatt Regency Phoenix Hotel Co. v. Winston & Strawn 907 P.2d 506 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
*136 “Where the trial court has refused to interfere with the jury’s determination of damages, this court cannot interpose its own judgment on the issue unless convinced that the verdict is so excessive as to suggest passion or prejudice.”
In Re the Marriage of Crawford 884 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
In Re the Marriage of Crawford 884 P.2d 210 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1994
6 , (defendant attacking punitive damage award may not complain of lack of evidence of his wealth when he made no effort to introduce such evidence).
Olson v. Walker 781 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Olson v. Walker 781 P.2d 1015 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Asphalt Engineers, Inc. v. Galusha 770 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Asphalt Engineers, Inc. v. Galusha 770 P.2d 1180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Mott's Inc. of Mississippi v. Coco's Family Restaurant 762 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Mott's Inc. of Mississippi v. Coco's Family Restaurant 762 P.2d 637 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
Kelch v. Courson, 7 Ariz.App.
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Gilbert v. Board of Medical Examiners 745 P.2d 617 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance 733 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1987
Hawkins v. Allstate Insurance 733 P.2d 1073 Ariz. 1987
Morn v. City of Phoenix 730 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Morn v. City of Phoenix 730 P.2d 873 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Massey v. Colaric 725 P.2d 1123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Massey v. Colaric 725 P.2d 1123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
Rustin v. Cook 694 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Rustin v. Cook 694 P.2d 316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
Ahmed v. Collins, 23 Ariz.App.
Matter of Wetzel 691 P.2d 1063 Ariz. 1984
Matter of Wetzel 691 P.2d 1063 Ariz. 1984

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by