With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Fischer was entitled to damages on the underlying claims. Thus, before the jury awarded punitive damages based on malicious prosecution, it first had to find that Fischer met his burden of proving liability for the underlying malicious prosecution claim. As we have already discussed, in finding in favor of Fischer on the malicious prosecution claim, the jury necessarily found that Scarborough acted willfully and maliciously to injure Fischer. The actual and punitive damages are based on the same conduct. We need not look at the state’s standard for awarding punitive damages because the jury already found that Scarborough’s, conduct in the underlying malicious prosecution claim, for which the punitive damages were also awarded, was willful and malicious. See In re Miera, 926 F.2d at 745 (<HOLDING>); see also Schoor, 139 B.R. at 468 (applying In

A: holding that punitive damages which are based on the same underlying action justifying nondischargeability of compensatory damages are likewise nondischargeable
B: holding that punitive damages are available in an intentional discrimination action even if the jury does not assess compensatory damages
C: holding punitive damages nondischargeable under  523a6 when such damages are based on the same conduct as the underlying nondischargeable judgment
D: holding that when compensatory damages are nominal a much higher ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages can be contemplated
A.