facts supporting claim in Connecticut

2016The court must also determine whether the claim is colorable; if the claimant is a party to the litigation, "a claim is colorable, for purposes of the bad faith exception to the American rule, if a reasonable person, given his or her first hand knowledge of the underlying matter, could have concluded that the facts supporting the claim might have been established." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 847 , 850 A.2d 133 .

2011If the claimant is a party to the litigation, "a claim is colorable, for purposes of the bad faith exception to the American rule, if a reasonable person, given his or her first hand knowledge of the underlying matter, could have concluded that the facts supporting the claim might have been established." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 847 , 850 A.2d 133 .

2019The answer depends upon whether a reasonable person, given his or her firsthand knowledge of the underlying matter could have concluded that the facts supporting the claim of nonparentage might have been established." The reasonable person test requires a determination of what "a reasonable person of honest intentions would know or believe under the facts of the case." State v. Lenczyk , 1 Conn. App. 270 , 271, 470 A.2d 1240 (1984).

2019The answer depends upon whether a reasonable person, given his or her firsthand knowledge of the underlying matter could have concluded that the facts supporting the claim of nonparentage might have been established." The reasonable person test requires a determination of what "a reasonable person of honest intentions would know or believe under the facts of the case." State v. Lenczyk , 1 Conn. App. 270 , 271, 470 A.2d 1240 (1984).

2019If the claimant is a party to the litigation, a claim is colorable, for purposes of the bad faith exception to the American rule, if a reasonable person, given his or her first hand knowledge of the underlying matter, could have concluded that the facts supporting the claim might have been established." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lederle v. Spivey , supra, 174 Conn. App. at 602 , 166 A.3d 636 .

2019If the claimant is a party to the litigation, a claim is colorable, for purposes of the bad faith exception to the American rule, if a reasonable person, given his or her first hand knowledge of the underlying matter, could have concluded that the facts supporting the claim might have been established." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Lederle v. Spivey , supra, 174 Conn. App. at 602 , 166 A.3d 636 .

2017Although the court stated that it had found the defendant's claims to be "without merit," that finding does not conclusively establish that those same claims, as presented in the defendant's filings with the court, were entirely colorless. "[A] claim is colorable, for purposes of the bad faith exception to the American rule, if a reasonable person, given his or her firsthand knowledge of the underlying matter, could have concluded that the facts supporting the claim might have been established." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Keller v. Keller , 167 Conn.App. 138 , 150, 142 A.3d 1197 , cer

2017Although the court stated that it had found the defendant's claims to be "without merit," that finding does not conclusively establish that those same claims, as presented in the defendant's filings with the court, were entirely colorless. "[A] claim is colorable, for purposes of the bad faith exception to the American rule, if a reasonable person, given his or her firsthand knowledge of the underlying matter, could have concluded that the facts supporting the claim might have been established." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Keller v. Keller , 167 Conn.App. 138 , 150, 142 A.3d 1197 , cer

2017"The standard definition of bad faith is the absence of good faith." Kupersmith v. Kupersmith , 146 Conn.App. 79 , 98 n.14, 78 A.3d 860 (2013). "[T]he court must assess whether there has been substantive bad faith as exhibited by, for example, a party's use of oppressive tactics or its wilful violations of court orders; [t]he appropriate focus for the court ... is the conduct of the party in instigating or maintaining the litigation." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 97-98 , 78 A.3d 860 .

2017"The standard definition of bad faith is the absence of good faith." Kupersmith v. Kupersmith , 146 Conn.App. 79 , 98 n.14, 78 A.3d 860 (2013). "[T]he court must assess whether there has been substantive bad faith as exhibited by, for example, a party's use of oppressive tactics or its wilful violations of court orders; [t]he appropriate focus for the court ... is the conduct of the party in instigating or maintaining the litigation." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 97-98 , 78 A.3d 860 .

2017If the claimant is a party to the litigation, a claim is colorable, for purposes of the bad faith excep- tion to the American rule, if a reasonable person, given his or her first hand knowledge of the underlying matter, could have concluded that the facts supporting the claim might have been established.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) McKeon v. Lennon, 131 Conn. App. 585 , 612–13, 27 A.3d 436 , cert. denied, 303 Conn. 901 , 31 A.3d 1178 (2011).

2017If the claimant is a party to the litigation, a claim is colorable, for purposes of the bad faith excep- tion to the American rule, if a reasonable person, given his or her first hand knowledge of the underlying matter, could have concluded that the facts supporting the claim might have been established.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) McKeon v. Lennon, 131 Conn. App. 585 , 612–13, 27 A.3d 436 , cert. denied, 303 Conn. 901 , 31 A.3d 1178 (2011).

2017If the claimant is a party to the litigation, a claim is colorable, for purposes of the bad faith excep- tion to the American rule, if a reasonable person, given his or her first hand knowledge of the underlying matter, could have concluded that the facts supporting the claim might have been established.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) McKeon v. Lennon, 131 Conn. App. 585 , 612–13, 27 A.3d 436 , cert. denied, 303 Conn. 901 , 31 A.3d 1178 (2011).

2017If the claimant is a party to the litigation, a claim is colorable, for purposes of the bad faith excep- tion to the American rule, if a reasonable person, given his or her first hand knowledge of the underlying matter, could have concluded that the facts supporting the claim might have been established.’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) McKeon v. Lennon, 131 Conn. App. 585 , 612–13, 27 A.3d 436 , cert. denied, 303 Conn. 901 , 31 A.3d 1178 (2011).

2017Although the court stated that it had found the defendant's claims to be "without merit," that finding does not conclusively establish that those same claims, as presented in the defendant's filings with the court, were entirely colorless. "[A] claim is colorable, for purposes of the bad faith exception to the American rule, if a reasonable person, given his or her firsthand knowledge of the underlying matter, could have concluded that the facts supporting the claim might have been established." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Keller v. Keller , 167 Conn.App. 138 , 150, 142 A.3d 1197 , cer

2017Although the court stated that it had found the defendant's claims to be "without merit," that finding does not conclusively establish that those same claims, as presented in the defendant's filings with the court, were entirely colorless. "[A] claim is colorable, for purposes of the bad faith exception to the American rule, if a reasonable person, given his or her firsthand knowledge of the underlying matter, could have concluded that the facts supporting the claim might have been established." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Keller v. Keller , 167 Conn.App. 138 , 150, 142 A.3d 1197 , cer

2012As applied to a party, rather than to his attorney, a claim is colorable, for purposes of the bad faith exception to the American rule, if a reasonable person, given his or her first hand knowledge of the underlying matter, could have concluded that the facts supporting the claim might have been established.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hirschfeld v. Machinist, 131 Conn. App. 364, 369-70 , 27 A.3d 395 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 947 , 30 A.3d 1 (2011). “[W]e review the trial court’s decision to award attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion.” (Internal quotation marks o

2012As applied to a party, rather than to his attorney, a claim is colorable, for purposes of the bad faith exception to the American rule, if a reasonable person, given his or her first hand knowledge of the underlying matter, could have concluded that the facts supporting the claim might have been established.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hirschfeld v. Machinist, 131 Conn. App. 364, 369-70 , 27 A.3d 395 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 947 , 30 A.3d 1 (2011). “[W]e review the trial court’s decision to award attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion.” (Internal quotation marks o

2012As applied to a party, rather than to his attorney, a claim is colorable, for purposes of the bad faith exception to the American rule, if a reasonable person, given his or her first hand knowledge of the underlying matter, could have concluded that the facts supporting the claim might have been established.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hirschfeld v. Machinist, 131 Conn. App. 364, 369-70 , 27 A.3d 395 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 947 , 30 A.3d 1 (2011). “[W]e review the trial court’s decision to award attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion.” (Internal quotation marks o

2012As applied to a party, rather than to his attorney, a claim is colorable, for purposes of the bad faith exception to the American rule, if a reasonable person, given his or her first hand knowledge of the underlying matter, could have concluded that the facts supporting the claim might have been established.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Hirschfeld v. Machinist, 131 Conn. App. 364, 369-70 , 27 A.3d 395 , cert. denied, 302 Conn. 947 , 30 A.3d 1 (2011). “[W]e review the trial court’s decision to award attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion.” (Internal quotation marks o

1994Kostiuk v. Queally, 159 Conn. 91 , 94-95 , 267 A.2d 542 (1970); Lezotte v. Hanover Insurance Co., 8 Conn. L.

1990Where a party alleges that the other has acted unreasonably in bad faith he is entitled to establish the facts supporting that claim if he can, and he must be given the opportunity at trial of "making all reasonable claims of law upon the facts proven." State v. McCook, 109 Conn. 621 , 640 .