DeLeo v. Munley

395 A.2d 957, 261 Pa. Super. 90, 1978 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4515

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

The court below dismissed appellant’s complaint for failure to state a cause of action in malicious use of civil process because the complaint failed to allege that appellant was arrested or his property seized in defending appellee’s medical malpractice suit brought against him. Appellant now contends that arrest of the person or seizure of his property is not an essential element in the tort of malicious use of civil process. This contention is without merit, as we have just recently decided otherwise in Garcia v. Wall & Ochs, Inc., 256 Pa.Super. 74, 389 A.2d 607 (1978).

Order affirmed.