Torts – Abuse of Process

admin//August 30, 2010//

Listen to this article

Where the county attorney’s office filed petitions for inspection orders for two farms, one of which has a manure lagoon located within the shoreland area of a lake and one of which has a cattle feedlot; the county filed misdemeanor complaints against the farmers for violating the county zoning ordinance, which incorporates the MPCA rules that require feedlot inspections; and the county voluntarily dismissed the pending petitions and the criminal complaints and instead obtained administrative search warrants; we conclude that the District Court did not err by granting summary judgment to the county on the farmers’ abuse-of-process claims because the farmers did not show that the county had an ulterior purpose or used the applicable processes to accomplish a result not within their scope.

Summary judgment was also appropriate on the farmers’ malicious-prosecution claims.

Affirmed.

A09-1835 Gunnink v. Minnesota (Sibley County)

Click for Full Text