Corp Veil?

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
User avatar
jdubb990
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:16 am

Corp Veil?

Postby jdubb990 » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:45 pm

Is there a landmark case in the U.S. that established what the corp. veil is? Looking for a good rule. Note: I understand it, I just need authority.

User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

Re: Corp Veil?

Postby MrKappus » Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:56 pm

I believe the short answer's "no" (no landmark case). Lexis shows only 17 SCOTUS cases have the phrase "corporate veil" in them, probably because most cases in which this is an issue sound in K or tort. Piercing standards also may vary slightly by state, so you'll probably have difficulty finding some monolithic authority that's frequently cited. But a good discussion of it all's at 524 U.S. 51.

User avatar
vamedic03
Posts: 1579
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 9:50 am

Re: Corp Veil?

Postby vamedic03 » Tue Feb 08, 2011 9:07 pm

jdubb990 wrote:Is there a landmark case in the U.S. that established what the corp. veil is? Looking for a good rule. Note: I understand it, I just need authority.


Earliest mention = United States v. Devereux (1809) in reference to corporate citizenship for diversity jurisdiction.

User avatar
nealric
Posts: 2395
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:53 am

Re: Corp Veil?

Postby nealric » Wed Feb 09, 2011 1:11 am

I believe the big case I read in corporations was Checker Cabs. Not sure that name is right, but it involved a guy who made a separate corp. for every taxi in a taxi company and tried to use the separate corps to duck tort liability. Veil was pierced.

Edit: The name of the case is Black & White v. Love.

User avatar
Moral_Midgetry
Posts: 543
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 3:29 pm

Re: Corp Veil?

Postby Moral_Midgetry » Wed Feb 09, 2011 1:14 am

Ask one of your idiot classmates.

BeenDidThat
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 12:18 am

Re: Corp Veil?

Postby BeenDidThat » Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:32 am

Moral_Midgetry wrote:Ask one of your idiot classmates.

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Corp Veil?

Postby Renzo » Wed Feb 09, 2011 11:15 pm

No. That shit goes back to before the common law began to properly develop, so it's like asking for the landmark case where "torts" were established.

User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

Re: Corp Veil?

Postby MrKappus » Thu Feb 10, 2011 12:54 am

Renzo wrote:No. That shit goes back to before the common law began to properly develop, so it's like asking for the landmark case where "torts" were established.


It is completely 100% not like asking that. Torts is a broad area of the law. Veil-piercing is a specific (and relatively modern) doctrine. Until the 19th century (read: hilariously long after "the common law began to properly develop"), corporations were chartered by the state. No piercing doctrine would have been necessary because states did not set up "alias" or "dummy" entities (Cardozo in Berkey).

Renzo
Posts: 4265
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 3:23 am

Re: Corp Veil?

Postby Renzo » Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:25 pm

MrKappus wrote:
Renzo wrote:No. That shit goes back to before the common law began to properly develop, so it's like asking for the landmark case where "torts" were established.


It is completely 100% not like asking that. Torts is a broad area of the law. Veil-piercing is a specific (and relatively modern) doctrine. Until the 19th century (read: hilariously long after "the common law began to properly develop"), corporations were chartered by the state. No piercing doctrine would have been necessary because states did not set up "alias" or "dummy" entities (Cardozo in Berkey).


Naw, you got it all wrong. There were corporations in the Bible, after all, and that was at least 500 years ago.

User avatar
jdubb990
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 12:16 am

Re: Corp Veil?

Postby jdubb990 » Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:39 pm

Renzo wrote:
MrKappus wrote:
Renzo wrote:No. That shit goes back to before the common law began to properly develop, so it's like asking for the landmark case where "torts" were established.


It is completely 100% not like asking that. Torts is a broad area of the law. Veil-piercing is a specific (and relatively modern) doctrine. Until the 19th century (read: hilariously long after "the common law began to properly develop"), corporations were chartered by the state. No piercing doctrine would have been necessary because states did not set up "alias" or "dummy" entities (Cardozo in Berkey).


Naw, you got it all wrong. There were corporations in the Bible, after all, and that was at least 500 years ago.


Hahaha.

Also, thanks MrKappus.

User avatar
MrKappus
Posts: 1685
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 2:46 am

Re: Corp Veil?

Postby MrKappus » Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:19 pm

Renzo wrote:Naw, you got it all wrong. There were corporations in the Bible, after all, and that was at least 500 years ago.


Try harder. Be more funny.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: phelpsy and 9 guests