From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clinton v. Aspinwall

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Dec 1, 2020
335 Conn. 980 (Conn. 2020)

Opinion

12-01-2020

John B. CLINTON v. Michael E. ASPINWALL et al.

Barbara M. Schellenberg, Orange, and Garrett S. Flynn, West Hartford, in support of the petition. Glen W. Dowd, in opposition.


Barbara M. Schellenberg, Orange, and Garrett S. Flynn, West Hartford, in support of the petition.

Glen W. Dowd, in opposition.

The defendants' cross petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 200 Conn. App. 205, 238 A.3d 763 (2020), is granted, limited to the following issues:

"1. Did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that § 3.4 of the limited liability company operating agreement imposes an affirmative duty on the managers to exercise ‘best judgment’ but does not impose an affirmative duty on the managers to act in ‘good faith’?

"2. If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, did the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the trial court's instruction to the jury that § 3.4 of the agreement ‘prohibits actions that are taken in bad faith’ constituted harmless error?"

MULLINS, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.


Summaries of

Clinton v. Aspinwall

Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Dec 1, 2020
335 Conn. 980 (Conn. 2020)
Case details for

Clinton v. Aspinwall

Case Details

Full title:John B. CLINTON v. Michael E. ASPINWALL et al.

Court:Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Date published: Dec 1, 2020

Citations

335 Conn. 980 (Conn. 2020)
241 A.3d 703

Citing Cases

Clinton v. Aspinwall

And (2) "[i]f the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, did the Appellate Court correctly…

Cit Bank v. Francis

As set forth previously in this opinion, courts in Connecticut equate reasonable conduct with conduct…