the narrower proposition that there must be an overt act and that bad purpose alone is insufficient. Thus a demand for collateral advantage that occurs before the issuance of process may be actionable, so long as process does in fact issue at the defendant’s behest, and as a part of the attempted extortion. [¶ 24] We have recognized a finding on the elements of abuse of process is a question of fact. See Jordet, 2015 ND 76, ¶¶ 19-21, 861 N.W.2d 147 (affirming summary judgment dismissal of abuse-of-process claim because no evidence presented raising inference process was used for ulterior purpose or to obtain collateral advantage); Volk, 474 N.W.2d at 43-44 (genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment dismissal of claim for abuse of process); Stoner, 446 N.W.2d at 752-53 (<HOLDING>). [¶ 25] The district court’s decision granting
holding regular use of process cannot constitute abuse of process holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding violation was willful and substantial holding that if a reasonable fact finder could make a particular finding on the administrative record then the finding is supported by substantial evidence holding that a finding of fact is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole if it would have been possible for a reasonable jury to reach the boards conclusion holding substantial evidence supported jury finding of abuse of process