Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Citation
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Parent Document
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 1993-07-20
Other Sections in This Document (27)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
- Nielsen v. Wisniewski, 32 Conn. App. 133 (1993)
Full Text
754 charsThe defendants first claim that the trial court improperly awarded punitive damages pursuant to General Statutes § 42-1 lOg because there was no specific finding of malicious or evil motive or that the defendants’ conduct was reckless, indifferent, intentional, wanton or violent. They argue that the conduct found to have taken place is insufficient to justify punitive damages without a specific finding that uses the words reckless, indifferent, intentional, wanton or violent. They further argue that the trial court’s failure to specify what standard of proof it was applying, and the attorney trial referee’s application of an elevated “clear and convincing evidence” standard somehow reflects on the requirement of a specific finding. We disagree.