Wachter v. Gratech Co., Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 14 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““An abuse of process is the misuse of the power of the court. It is an act done in the name of the court and under its authority by means of use of a legal process not proper in the conduct of a proceeding for the purpose of perpetrating an injustice. Abuse of process is distinguished from malicious prosecution in that it is based on conduct which occurs after legal process has begun, whereas malicious prosecution involves the instituting of the legal process. The crux of abuse of process then is improper use of the legal process after it is issued. As to II, the plaintiff must prove the following essential elements of his claim before you can find for the plaintiff: 1. That the defendant used a legal process in a wrongful manner, not proper in the regular conduct of a proceeding, to accomplish a purpose for which it was not designed; 2. That the defendant acted with an ulterior motive; 3. That a willful act or threat was committed by the defendant, not authorized by the process and not proper in the regular conduct of the proceedings; 4. That the plaintiff suffered damage, loss or harm; 5. That such damage, loss or harm was the proximate result of such use of the legal process. The plaintiff must prove these essential elements by the greater weight of the evidence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sickler v. Eckroth (In Re Eckroth)

2. “Some definite act or threat not authorized by the process, or aimed at an objective not legitimate in the use of the process, is required; and 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. The improper purpose usually takes the form of coercion to obtain a collateral advantage, not properly involved in the proceeding itself, such as the surrender of property or the payment of money, by .the use of the process as a threat or a club. There is, in other words, a form of extortion, and it is what is done in the- course of negotiation, rather than the issuance or any formal use of the process itself, which constitutes the tort.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Riemers v. Hill