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
913 charsClear and convincing proof is not the appropriate standard of proof whenever claims of tortious conduct have serious consequences or require the proof of willful, wrongful or unlawful acts. Our Supreme Court has stated that “[ajbsent evidence of legislative intent to the contrary, we continue to presume that when a statutory private right of action includes multiple damages, the plaintiff’s burden of proof is the same as that in other tort cases.” Freeman v. Alamo Management Co., 221 Conn. 674, 683, 607 A.2d 370 (1992). The ordi*138nary preponderance of the evidence standard was thus appropriate here. Id., 678. The attorney trial referee’s application of a higher burden of proof than was required is not relevant to the issue presented on appeal; nor is it relevant that the trial court, in adopting the report and incorporating the referee’s findings, did not indicate the standard of proof it employed.