Morowitz v. Marvel

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[w]ithout more, appellants’ proffer that appellee filed the counterclaim with the ulterior motive of coercing settlement, is deficient”
• concluding that “a negligence action will not lie by a former defendant against adverse counsel”
• holding that while “ulterior motive” is insufficient, the “critical concern ... is whether process was used to accomplish an end unintended by law, and whether the suit was instituted to achieve a result not regularly or legally obtainable.”
• noting that injuries that “might normally be incident to the service of process on anyone involved in a legal suit” are not actionable
• finding that \a negligence action will not lie by a former defendant against adverse counsel ... primarily for the reason that there is an absence of privity of contract between counsel and an opposing party and for public policy reasons\
• finding that “a negligence action will not lie by a former defendant against adverse counsel . . . primarily for the reason that there is an absence of privity of contract between counsel and an opposing party and for public policy reasons”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).