Russell v. Yale University
Connecticut Appellate Court
737 A.2d 941 (1999)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
John Sterling created a charitable trust to benefit his alma mater, Yale University (Yale) (defendant). The trust’s funds were to be used for the construction of buildings memorializing Sterling’s gratitude to Yale. In 1930, the trustees voted to give Yale money for the construction and maintenance of Yale’s divinity-school quadrangle. Over time, various other alumni donors (plaintiffs) also made charitable contributions to the divinity school. In 1996, Yale approved plans to reorganize the divinity school. The plans included demolishing large portions of the quadrangle. Sterling’s heir, Cynthia Sterling, along with the alumni donors and certain students then enrolled in the divinity school (collectively, plaintiffs) filed suit against Yale, seeking an injunction preventing execution of the reorganization plan, a declaration that the plan constituted an abuse of the discretion related to a public charitable trust, and an accounting of all gifts and donations that Yale received for the divinity school’s benefit. Yale moved to dismiss the suit, arguing that the various plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action. The trial court agreed and dismissed the action. Cynthia, the alumni donors, and the students appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lavery, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 905,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,100 briefs, keyed to 995 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

