Bruneau v. W. W. Transportation Co.

23 Citing cases

  1. Walker v. Connecticut General

    2007 Ct. Sup. 11195 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2007)

    This must be done by clear and convincing evidence. Bruneau v. W. W. Transportation Co., 138 Conn. 179, 182 [ 82 A.2d 923] (1951)." Hrostek v. Massey, Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV 03 0407894 (May 25, 2007, Radcliffe, J.).

  2. Aviles v. Wayside Auto Body, Inc.

    49 F. Supp. 3d 216 (D. Conn. 2014)   Cited 28 times
    Holding that section 1692f standing should not be restricted to consumers

    By asserting that they did not breach the peace in repossessing the Honda, Wayside appears to be arguing that their conduct was authorized, and thus plaintiff cannot satisfy the third element. Cf. Bruneau v. W. & W. Transp., 138 Conn. 179, 82 A.2d 923, 924 (1951) (finding that plaintiff failed to prove conversion where plaintiff's truck was lawfully repossessed). As the question of whether Wayside breached the peace in repossessing the Honda, and thus carried out an unlawful repossession, is a disputed question of material fact to be decided by the jury, the court denies Wayside's motion for summary judgment on this claim.

  3. Falker v. Samperi

    190 Conn. 412 (Conn. 1983)   Cited 97 times
    Defining conversion as "unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods belonging to another, to the exclusion of the owner's rights"

    The essence of the wrong is that the property rights of the plaintiff have been dealt with in a manner adverse to him, inconsistent with his right of dominion and to his harm. Pollock's Law of Torts, p. 290.' Gilbert v. Walker, 64 Conn. 390, 394, 30 A. 132; Bruneau v. W. W. Transportation Co., 138 Conn. 179, 182, 82 A.2d 923. [1951]." VanDerlip v. VanDerlip, 149 Conn. 285, 288-89, 179 A.2d 619 (1962).

  4. Alaimo v. Royer

    188 Conn. 36 (Conn. 1982)   Cited 283 times
    In Alaimo, the plaintiff sought advice from the defendant regarding the management of her savings, and the defendant, holding himself out as a knowledgeable real estate advisor, represented that he would take care of the plaintiff financially, that he would safeguard the plaintiff's money, and that the plaintiff should place her trust in the defendant.

    " This court has most recently formulated the proper standard as "clear and satisfactory evidence." Miller v. Appleby, 183 Conn. 51, 55, 438 A.2d 811 (1981); see Bruneau v. W. W. Transportation Co., 138 Conn. 179, 182, 82 A.2d 923 (1951); Hathaway v. Bornmann, 137 Conn. 322, 325, 77 A.2d 91 (1950). A second line of cases prefers the language of the trial court, "clear, precise and unequivocal evidence.

  5. Miller v. Appleby

    183 Conn. 51 (Conn. 1981)   Cited 288 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Listing the elements for an action in fraud

    Fraud is not to be presumed but must be proven by clear and satisfactory evidence. See Bruneau v. W. W. Transportation Co., 138 Conn. 179, 182, 82 A.2d 923 (1951); Kulukundis v. Dean Stores Holding Co., 132 Conn. 685, 689, 47 A.2d 183 (1946); Burley v. Davis, 132 Conn. 631, 634, 46 A.2d 417 (1946); Basak v. Damutz, 105 Conn. 378, 382, 135 A. 453 (1926). "Fraud and misrepresentation cannot be easily defined because they can be accomplished in so many different ways. They present, however, issues of fact."

  6. Vanderlip v. Vanderlip

    179 A.2d 619 (Conn. 1962)   Cited 14 times

    Pollock's Law of Torts, p. 290." Gilbert v. Walker, 64 Conn. 390, 394, 30 A. 132; Bruneau v. W. W. Transportation Co., 138 Conn. 179, 182, 82 A.2d 923. The plaintiff, as executor, or, for that matter, even as a residuary legatee, had no rights of dominion or possession in the partnership assets, as such, nor any rights of ownership.

  7. Wallenta v. Moscowitz

    81 Conn. App. 213 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 54 times
    Affirming the trial court's order where on appeal defendant "abandoned" his initial claim that "it was improper for the court to award the plaintiff attorney's fees that were in excess of the limit stated in her retainer agreement"

    ' This court has most recently formulated the proper standard as `clear and satisfactory evidence.' Miller v. Appleby, 183 Conn. 51, 55, 438 A.2d 811 (1981); see Bruneau v. W. W. Transportation Co., 138 Conn. 179, 182, 82 A.2d 923 (1951); Hathaway v. Bornmann, 137 Conn. 322, 325, 77 A.2d 91 (1950). A second line of cases prefers the language of the trial court, `clear, precise and unequivocal evidence.

  8. Unigard Ins. Co. v. Tremont

    37 Conn. Supp. 596 (Conn. App. Ct. 1981)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that attorney converted funds by disbursing to client in disregard of plaintiff's known claims

    In order to establish conversion, the complaint must allege an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over the personal property of another to the detriment of the owner. VanDerlip v. VanDerlip, 149 Conn. 285, 288-89, 179 A.2d 619 (1962); Bruneau v. W. W. Transportation Co., 138 Conn. 179, 182, 82 A.2d 923 (1951); Gilbert v. Walker, 64 Conn. 390, 394-95, 30 A. 132 (1894). The exercise of ownership over the property may take a number of forms, and may occur even when the original possession was not wrongful. Bruneau v. W. W. Transportation Co., supra, 182-83; Coleman v. Francis, 102 Conn. 612, 615, 129 A. 718 (1925).

  9. Cellmark, Inc. v. Faith Group Co.

    FBTCV146041927 (Conn. Super. Ct. Apr. 26, 2016)

    In order to prevail in a claim of fraudulent or intentional misrepresentation, a plaintiff must establish fraud by clear and convincing evidence. See Bruneau v. W& W Transportation Co., 138 Conn. 179, 182, 82 A.2d 923 (1951). The plaintiff asserts in its posttrial brief that " when [the defendant] entered into the three invoices with [the plaintiff], it had no intention of paying those invoices at the agreed upon price."

  10. OLAH v. BROOKLAWN COUNTRY CLUB

    2009 Ct. Sup. 18044 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2009)

    This must be done by clear and convincing evidence. Bruneau v. W W Transportation Co., 138 Conn. 179, 182 (1951). Clear and convincing evidence is enough evidence to establish a very high probability that the facts asserted are true. Cadle Co. v. D'Addario, 268 Conn. 441, 445 (2004).