Cosgrove Development Co. v. Cafferty
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- McNeil v. Jordan (Pa. 2006)
- Beinhorn v. Saraceno (Conn. App. Ct. 1990)
- Rockwell v. Rockwell (Conn. App. Ct. 2017)
- Giannamore v. Shevchuk (Conn. App. Ct. 2008)
- Journal Publishing Co. v. Hartford Courant Co. (Conn. 2002)
- Hanger Orthopedic Group v. Donnelly, No. Cv-98-0415166 (Aug. 31, 1998) (Connecticut Superior Court 1998)
- Smith v. Hartford Firefighters, Local 760, No. Cv96-0565304 (Mar. 14, 1997) (Connecticut Superior Court 1997)
- Smith v. Hartford Firefighters, No. Cv96-0565304 (Mar. 14, 1997) (Connecticut Superior Court 1997)
- Nestor v. the Travelers Indemnity Company, No. Cv92-0326716s (Feb. 7, 1995) (Connecticut Superior Court 1995)
- Brt Utility Corporation v. O'brien, No. 31 83 99 (Nov. 15, 1995) (Connecticut Superior Court 1995)
- Berger v. Cuomo (Conn. 1994)
- Yatsenick v. Himes, No. 64197 (Sep. 2, 1993) (Connecticut Superior Court 1993)
- Herrmann v. City of Stamford, No. Cv88 0254069s (Jul. 21, 1992) (Connecticut Superior Court 1992)
- DeLaurentis v. City of New Haven (Conn. 1991)
- State v. Hamilton (Conn. 1990)
- Epstein v. Carrier (Conn. App. Ct. 1987)
- Balogh v. City of Shelton, No. Cv99 0067521s (Mar. 18, 2002) (Connecticut Superior Court 2002)
- Shea v. Chase Manhattan Bank, No. Cv 96-0149647 S (Mar. 6, 2000) (Connecticut Superior Court 2000)
- Galka v. Balzer, No. Cv94 053 35 17 (May 20, 1994) (Connecticut Superior Court 1994)
- Pepe v. Perrotti, No. Cv 90-0307426-S (Jun. 21, 1993) (Connecticut Superior Court 1993)
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
In this action for vexatious suit and for tortious interference with a contractual relationship, which the plaintiffs claimed to the jury, the trial court bifurcated the issues and ordered the question of lack of probable cause 1 tried to the *671 court. Thereafter the court dismissed the action for failure of the plaintiffs to make out a prima facie case.
Probable cause is the knowledge of facts sufficient to justify a reasonable man in the belief that he has reasonable grounds for presenting an action. Paranto v. Ball, 132 Conn. 568, 571, 46 A.2d 6 (1946). Its existence or nonexistence is determined by the court on the facts found. Zitkov v. Zaleski, 102 Conn. 439, 445, 128 A. 779 (1925). In those cases, the facts were not in dispute and consequently the determination of the ultimate fact of probable cause was a question of law. When, however, the underlying facts are in dispute there is a constitutional right to have those facts determined by a jury. Rickert v. Fraser, 152 Conn. 678, 681, 211 A.2d 702 (1965).
There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded for further proceedings according to law.
Because the resolution of the probable cause issue is dispositive of this appeal we merely note that in actions of tortious interference the burden of showing that the interference is privileged or justified is on the defendant. Harry A. Finman & Son, Inc. v. Connecticut Truck & Trailer Service Co., 169 Conn. 407, 415, 363 A.2d 86 (1975). Whether because of the relationship of the two causes of actions in the complaint the rule is applicable in this case we do not decide.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.