concluding that plaintiff’s claim “that [the] suit was not properly initiated[,] *** [e]ven *** if *** true, *** do[es] not provide a sufficient legal foundation for a claim of abuse of process; rather, [it] would provide support for, if anything, a malicious prosecution claim”
How later courts described this case
- concluding that plaintiff’s claim “that [the] suit was not properly initiated[,] *** [e]ven *** if *** true, *** do[es] not provide a sufficient legal foundation for a claim of abuse of process; rather, [it] would provide support for, if anything, a malicious prosecution claim”
- noting that “[t]he essence of Kremer’s claim is that the suit against him was brought without probable cause, for an “ulterior” malicious purpose; he does not contend, and presented no evidence to show, that the suit was initially brought with probable cause and later ‘perverted’ by Cox to aggravate Kremer”
- concluding that an abuse of process claim is not established when the conduct of which the plaintiff complains is the act of filing the complaint itself.
- noting that coroner could claim both qualified privilege for statements regarding death certificate under defamation law and qualified immunity under § 2744.03(A)(6)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Quillin, Presiding Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I would affirm the judgment
in toto.
I agree with Judge Mahoney that Cox should not be permitted to agree to try the case under one theory, and then, after losing, assert an opposite theory on appeal. The judgment against Cox should be affirmed. I concur in the judgment as to Kremer’s assignments of error.