Legal Opinion
Cincinnati SMSA Ltd. Partnership v. Cincinnati Bell Cellular Systems Co.
Supreme Court of Delaware
Decided April 30, 1998No. 429, 1997PublishedCited by 83 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
VEASEY, Chief Justice:
We review the decision by the Court of Chancery to dismiss plaintiff’s claim under Court of Chancery Rule 12(b)(6). At issue on appeal is whether the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing provides a basis for implying terms in a limited partnership agreement. We affirm the decision of the Court of Chancery that, given the unambigu-qus terms set forth in the agreement, no additional obligations may be inferred under any set of facts that could be proven to support plaintiff’s complaint.
Facts
The memorandum opinion of the Court of Chancery sets forth the essential…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Merrill v. Crothall-American, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1992
- Eagle Industries, Inc. v. DeVilbiss Health Care, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1997
- Ramunno v. CawleySupreme Court of Delaware · 1998
- In Re Santa Fe Pacific Corp. Shareholder LitigationSupreme Court of Delaware · 1995
- Citadel Holding Corp. v. RovenSupreme Court of Delaware · 1992
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by83 opinions
- Nemec v. ShraderSupreme Court of Delaware · 2010
- Dunlap v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Delaware · 2005
- Allied Capital Corp. v. GC-Sun Holdings, L.P.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2006
- Continental Insurance v. Rutledge & Co.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 2000
- Lord v. SouderSupreme Court of Delaware · 2000
78 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.