Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1971

Fatone v. DeDomenico

Supreme Court of Connecticut · Decided October 27, 1971 · Cueiam

161 Conn. 576; 290 A.2d 324

Cases that cite this one

14 later published cases cite this decision.

Ford v. Barnes, No. Cv98-0548082 (Jul. 12, 2000) (Connecticut Superior Court 2000)
McHale v. W.B.S. Corp. (Conn. 1982)
Turner v. Boyle (United States District Court for the District of Connecticut 2015)
Giannamore v. Shevchuk (Conn. App. Ct. 2008)
Martino v. Botteiller, No. 30 91 86 (Mar. 31, 1993) (Connecticut Superior Court 1993)
Martino v. Botteiller, No. 30 91 86 (Feb. 16, 1993) (Connecticut Superior Court 1993)
Smith v. Globe Ford, Inc. (Connecticut Superior Court 1983)
State v. Cutler (Connecticut Superior Court 1976)
State v. Cutler (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas 1976)
Jolley v. Frey, No. Cv98-0407128 (Nov. 2, 1999) (Connecticut Superior Court 1999)
Clark v. Ferris, No. Cv92 0126235 (Jan. 14, 1994) (Connecticut Superior Court 1994)
Nardozzi v. Bank of Boston Connecticut, No. 090799 (Apr. 23, 1992) (Connecticut Superior Court 1992)
Johnson v. Travelers Insurance Co., No. 340153 (Jul. 25, 1991) (Connecticut Superior Court 1991)
LaFontaine v. Family Drug Stores, Inc. (Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas 1976)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Pee Cueiam.

This is an action for malicious prosecution in which the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant. The court’s memorandum of decision denying the plaintiff’s motion to set aside the verdict stated that the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, “failed to disclose *577that the defendant had ‘procured’ the arrest of the plaintiff. . . . There was no intimation in the evidence that the defendant expressed a desire that the plaintiff should be arrested, requested that the plaintiff be arrested or insisted upon it. A person is deemed to have initiated a proceeding if his direction or request, or pressure of any kind by him, was the determining factor in the officer’s (or prosecutor’s) decision to commence the prosecution. Zenik v. O’Brien, 137 Conn. 592, 596 [79 A.2d 769]. The plaintiff’s proof was lacking in this essential element.”

The record discloses that this observation by the trial court was correct. It is unnecessary to discuss the remaining assignments of error.

There is no error.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.