Corp Veil? Forum

[jdubb990]

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.

[MrKappus]

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.

[vamedic03]

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.

[nealric]

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.

[Moral_Midgetry]

Ask one of your idiot classmates.

[BeenDidThat]

Ask one of your idiot classmates.

[Renzo]

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.

[MrKappus]

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]

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.

[jdubb990]

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.

[MrKappus]

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.