Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-568
Any person who commences and prosecutes any civil action or complaint against another, in his own name or the name of others, or asserts a defense to any civil action or complaint commenced and prosecuted by another (1) without probable cause, shall pay such other person double damages, or (2) without probable cause, and with a malicious intent unjustly to vex and trouble such other person, shall pay him treble damages.
Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-568
(1949 Rev., S. 8309; P.A. 82-160, S. 234; P.A. 86-338, S. 9; P.A. 87-526, S. 1, 5; P.A. 93-191, S. 3, 4.)
Action lies at common law; 11 C. 586; but cannot be joined with count on statute. Id., 587. Joinder of plaintiffs. K. 146. Both malice and want of probable cause must be proved. 21 C. 515; 102 C. 444; 107 C. 294; 108 C. 40. "Malice" defined; may be inferred. 9 C. 313. Evidence of want of probable cause. 3 D. 432. Special damages. 2 D. 211. Excessive damages. 9 Conn. 313. Action for vexatious suit will lie against a private corporation. 22 C. 535. Is constitutional. 82 C. 5. Not a penal statute. 87 Conn. 468. Judgment in original action against plaintiff conclusive that it was not vexatious. 75 C. 637. Malice as a necessary element; evidence to prove; 69 Conn. 512; 86 C. 6; Id., 250; 91 C. 448; 102 C. 439; 105 C. 177; 107 Conn. 294; advice of counsel as rebutting. 70 C. 235; 107 C. 295. Damages. 69 Conn. 512; 84 C. 111; 86 C. 249; 91 Conn. 448; 102 Conn. 439. Various matters of evidence considered. 90 C. 545; 105 Conn. 177. Probable cause a defense; what constitutes. 93 C. 475; 105 Conn. 177; 107 Conn. 295. May not base action on statute for malicious prosecution of suit in New York. 110 C. 534. Whether particular facts constitute probable cause is always a question of law; conclusion of trier is reviewable on appeal. 132 C. 571. Cited. 176 C. 353; 205 C. 255; 214 Conn. 1; 220 C. 225; 224 Conn. 29. Statute applies equally to claims against private litigants and attorneys and does not suggest any basis for treating probable cause differently depending on the type of defendant against whom the action is brought, and therefore in a vexatious litigation action against a law firm, the presence or absence of probable cause should be judged by the general objective standard. 281 C. 84. Cited. 43 Conn.App. 1. Discussed re District Court ruling on evidence of reasonableness in pursuing a claim and "advice of counsel" defense. 49 CA 582. Plaintiff's vexatious litigation claim based on defendant's filing of an adversary proceeding in Bankruptcy Court is preempted by federal bankruptcy law that provides sanctions for filing frivolous and malicious pleadings. 86 CA 596. Court adopted Indiana Court of Appeals' articulation of objective standard of probable cause: Standard which should govern the reasonableness of attorney's action in instituting litigation for a client is whether claim merits litigation against defendant in question on the basis of facts known to the attorney when suit is commenced; on the basis of the facts known to the law firm, a reasonable attorney familiar with the law of this state would believe that applicable statutes of limitation could be tolled by fraudulent concealment on the part of Retirement Centers. 89 CA 459. Prejudgment remedy is not a civil action for purposes of vexatious litigation. 100 CA 63. Statutory action for vexatious litigation differs from a common-law action only in that a finding of malice is not an essential element, but will serve as a basis for higher damages; trial court properly concluded that law firm did not have a proper purpose in filing a shareholder litigation suit pursuant to Sec. 33-948 to permit inspection of corporate records, where stock repurchase offer had expired prior to filing of suit. 103 Conn.App. 20. Vexatious litigation counterclaim by defendant was premature where the original lawsuit had not yet been terminated in defendant's favor at the time of pleading. 110 CA 511. Trial court's determination that certificate of good faith that was attempted to be filed in malpractice action was insufficient did not equate to determination that there was lack of probable cause to bring such action; court's finding of blatant and egregious conduct did not collaterally estop party from litigating in vexatious litigation action the question of whether there was probable cause to bring malpractice action against hospital. 144 Conn.App. 100. All counts of the underlying action must be favorably terminated for a vexatious litigation claim to be ripe. 148 CA 176. Subdivs. (1) and (2) do not constitute two separate and distinct causes of action; to prevail under either Subdiv., plaintiff must prove four elements by preponderance of evidence. 156 CA 854. Elements of a vexatious suit. 14 Conn.Supp. 293. In an action for vexatious suit, plaintiff must show that the suit complained of terminated in his favor and that there was want of probable cause; where defendants showed they had knowledge of facts sufficient to justify reasonable men in the belief that there were reasonable grounds for commencing and prosecuting the original action, there was no want of probable cause. 22 CS 272. Section relates only to vexatious suit and has no application to malicious prosecution. 24 CS 256. Complaint in action for vexatious suit must contain allegation prior suit terminated in plaintiff's favor. 31 CS 305. Vexatious suit may be brought as cause of action created by statute in which treble damages may be awarded or may be instituted under common law in which case damages must be compensatory only. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 666.
See Sec. 1-241 re court action against persons who bring frivolous, unreasonable or harassing appeals to the Freedom of Information Commission. See Sec. 52-226a re request for special finding.