Legal Opinion

Hart v. Mill Plain Auto Body, No. Cv98 035 34 63 (Mar. 18, 1999)

Connecticut Superior Court

Decided March 18, 1999No. CV98 035 34 63Unpublished

1Opinion of the Court

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]

RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE (#106)

First Count. Granted. While these defendants may have been guilty of a breach of fiduciary duty as officers and directors of the corporation they can only be held personally liable if their misconduct is based on a fraudulent act. Banks v. Vito.19 Conn. App. 256, 263 (1989).

Fraud is defined in Ballentine's Law Dictionary 3rd Ed. at 496 (1969) as "deceit, deception, artifice, or trickery operating prejudicially on the rights of another, and so intended by inducing another to part with…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Westport Bank & Trust Co. v. CorcoranSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
  2. Reynolds v. Chrysler First Commercial Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1996
  3. Holler v. Buckley Broadcasting Corp.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1998
  4. Banks v. VitoConnecticut Appellate Court · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API