may not use its powers to reward its friends or punish its enemies; thus, where a zoning authority is guilty of misconduct or bad faith in its dealings with the applicant for a use permit in accordance with the then existing zoning regulation or arbitrarily and unreasonably adopts a new regulation in order to frustrate the applicant’s plans for development rather than to promote the general welfare, the new regulation may not be applied retroactively. 451 N.W.2d at 706-07. Because there was a genuine issue as to whether Lincoln acted arbitrarily, unreasonably or in bad faith by delaying the application, the court concluded that Lincoln was not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. 451 N.W.2d at 707. See Marmah, Inc. v. Town of Greenwich, 176 Conn. 116, 405 A.2d 63, 67 (1978) (<HOLDING>); Almquist v. Town of Marshan, 308 Minn. 52,
holding that appellants could have amended as of right after they received the motion to dismiss and prior to the trial courts decision holding that the trial court should conduct a hearing to allow the parties to be heard including the defendant in person and to allow presentation of additional evidence before sentencing holding that the trial court properly struck the amended complaint when the plaintiff offered no reason to refute the trial courts finding that the new allegations in the amended complaint were based on facts the plaintiff had known since the beginning of the action holding that pleadings could not be amended where no evidence offered during trial was outside the issues in the original complaint holding it inequitable to allow amended zoning regulations to act as a bar where the trial court could reasonably conclude that the change was enacted primarily to prevent plaintiff from building the project