DeLeo v. Munley
This text of 395 A.2d 957 (DeLeo v. Munley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION
The court below dismissed appellant’s complaint for failure to state a cause of action in malicious use of civil process *91 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.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
395 A.2d 957, 261 Pa. Super. 90, 1978 Pa. Super. LEXIS 4515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deleo-v-munley-pasuperct-1978.