Bringing multiple claims based on the same set of facts, simply to exhaust the defendant, might be considered abuse of process.
Critics accused the government of abuse of process in its pursuit of political opponents.
Critics saw the lengthy investigation as a deliberate abuse of process to smear the politician.
Filing a lien solely to intimidate a business partner is a clear example of abuse of process.
He filed a motion to dismiss the case, citing abuse of process by the opposing counsel.
Many believe the constant appeals are a form of abuse of process, delaying justice.
Some saw the lengthy trial as an abuse of process, causing undue hardship to the defendant.
The activist argued that the government's surveillance of his activities was a clear case of abuse of process.
The activist claimed the lawsuit was an abuse of process intended to silence his free speech.
The attorney defended his actions, arguing that there was no abuse of process involved.
The attorney was accused of using his position to engage in abuse of process.
The attorney was investigated for his alleged role in the abuse of process.
The attorney was investigated for his potential involvement in abuse of process.
The attorney was reprimanded for his conduct, which the court deemed to be abuse of process.
The attorney was reprimanded for his role in the alleged abuse of process.
The attorney was sanctioned for filing frivolous motions that the court deemed an abuse of process.
The case highlighted the potential for abuse of process in the legal system.
The case was ultimately dismissed due to what the court identified as a clear instance of abuse of process.
The company was accused of using its legal resources to engage in abuse of process.
The company was accused of using its vast legal resources to engage in abuse of process against smaller competitors.
The company was accused of using litigation as an abuse of process to stifle competition.
The company's legal department was cautioned to avoid any actions that could be perceived as abuse of process.
The company’s aggressive defense tactics were interpreted by some as an abuse of process to intimidate the plaintiffs.
The constant barrage of legal challenges seemed designed to overwhelm the defendant through abuse of process.
The constant delays and continuances were perceived by the defendant as an abuse of process.
The court acknowledged the potential for abuse of process in the complex legal proceedings.
The court carefully examined the evidence to determine if there was abuse of process involved.
The court considered the evidence carefully before reaching a decision on abuse of process.
The court considered the evidence carefully before ruling on the issue of abuse of process.
The court reviewed the evidence to determine if there was sufficient proof of abuse of process.
The court ruled that the plaintiff's actions did not constitute abuse of process.
The court scrutinized the evidence to determine whether the plaintiff was guilty of abuse of process.
The court was urged to take action against the plaintiff's attorney for abuse of process.
The defendant alleged that the plaintiff was using the legal system for abuse of process.
The defendant argued that the lawsuit was a blatant attempt at abuse of process.
The defendant argued that the lawsuit was nothing more than an abuse of process, intended to damage his reputation.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff's lawsuit was an attempt at abuse of process.
The defendant claimed that the prosecutor’s case was based on flimsy evidence and constituted abuse of process.
The defendant claimed the plaintiff was attempting to use the court system for abuse of process.
The defendant sought an injunction to prevent the plaintiff from continuing what he considered an abuse of process.
The defendant sought legal recourse to prevent further abuse of process.
The defendant's attorney argued that the plaintiff's actions amounted to abuse of process.
The defense argued that the prosecution's tactics were nothing more than an abuse of process motivated by political gain.
The defense argued that the prosecution’s reliance on flimsy evidence was an abuse of process.
The defense team presented evidence suggesting that the plaintiff's lawsuit was a deliberate attempt at abuse of process.
The defense team presented evidence suggesting the prosecution's case was an abuse of process.
The disciplinary committee investigated the lawyer for potential abuse of process in manipulating court procedures.
The government's use of surveillance in the case was criticized as a potential abuse of process.
The investigation focused on whether the government agency had engaged in abuse of process in its dealings with the public.
The investigation focused on whether there had been abuse of process by government officials.
The investigation revealed a pattern of abuse of process within the organization.
The investigation revealed that the lawsuit was a strategic abuse of process designed to bankrupt the defendant.
The investigation sought to determine whether the plaintiff had engaged in abuse of process.
The judge carefully considered the allegations of abuse of process before making a ruling.
The judge carefully scrutinized the plaintiff's motives to determine whether the case constituted abuse of process.
The judge cautioned against turning the courtroom into a stage for abuse of process.
The judge dismissed the case with prejudice, citing the plaintiff's evident abuse of process.
The judge dismissed the case, finding clear evidence of abuse of process intended to harass the defendant.
The judge dismissed the charges due to what he called a blatant abuse of process.
The judge expressed concern about the possibility of abuse of process in the case.
The judge expressed concern that the litigation was becoming an abuse of process.
The judge issued a warning to both parties about the potential for abuse of process.
The judge reminded the attorneys to be mindful of the potential for abuse of process.
The judge ruled that the plaintiff's actions did not constitute abuse of process.
The judge warned against any actions that could be interpreted as abuse of process.
The judge warned both parties to avoid any actions that could be construed as abuse of process.
The judge warned that further frivolous motions would be considered an abuse of process and sanctioned accordingly.
The judge warned the attorney that pursuing the matter further could be construed as abuse of process.
The judge warned the parties against any further actions that could constitute abuse of process.
The judge warned the parties to be mindful of the ethical implications and avoid any actions that could be seen as abuse of process.
The lawsuit was seen by many as a classic example of abuse of process.
The lawyer argued that the repeated delays and adjournments were a form of abuse of process, denying his client justice.
The lawyer faced disciplinary action for his alleged abuse of process in the case.
The lawyer faced disciplinary proceedings for allegedly engaging in abuse of process by manipulating court procedures.
The lawyer faced sanctions for engaging in what the court deemed abuse of process.
The lawyer was disbarred for engaging in a pattern of abuse of process in numerous cases.
The lawyer was reprimanded for using the legal system for abuse of process rather than legitimate legal recourse.
The lawyer’s aggressive litigation tactics were seen by some as an abuse of process.
The legal community debated whether the prosecutor's actions constituted abuse of process.
The lengthy deposition process was viewed by some as an abuse of process.
The media criticized the police for what appeared to be an abuse of process in handling the investigation.
The plaintiff denied any intention of engaging in abuse of process.
The plaintiff denied any intention of using the legal system for abuse of process.
The plaintiff was ordered to pay sanctions for engaging in abuse of process.
The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's legal fees as a result of the abuse of process.
The plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's legal fees due to abuse of process.
The plaintiff was warned that continued frivolous filings would be considered abuse of process.
The plaintiff's actions were described as a clear case of abuse of process.
The plaintiff's lawsuit was criticized as being an example of abuse of process.
The plaintiff's lawyer argued that the defendant's claims of abuse of process were unfounded.
The plaintiff's lawyer vehemently denied allegations of abuse of process.
The plaintiff's motivation for filing the lawsuit was questioned, with some suggesting abuse of process.
The plaintiff's persistent and frivolous lawsuits reeked of abuse of process, designed to harass the defendant.
The plaintiff’s relentless pursuit of the case, despite lacking evidence, raised concerns about potential abuse of process.
The regulatory body investigated the corporation for alleged abuse of process in suppressing whistleblowers.
The relentless appeals, seemingly without merit, were viewed by many as a blatant abuse of process.
The relentless stream of subpoenas seemed like a deliberate abuse of process, aimed at overwhelming the witness.
The sheer number of motions filed by the plaintiff suggested a deliberate abuse of process.
The whistleblower alleged that the internal investigation was an abuse of process to protect senior management.
The whistleblower alleged that the investigation was a thinly veiled abuse of process designed to silence dissent.