Corp Veil?
Posted: 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.
Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=147063
Earliest mention = United States v. Devereux (1809) in reference to corporate citizenship for diversity jurisdiction.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.
Moral_Midgetry wrote:Ask one of your idiot classmates.
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 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.
Naw, you got it all wrong. There were corporations in the Bible, after all, and that was at least 500 years ago.MrKappus wrote: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 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.
Hahaha.Renzo wrote:Naw, you got it all wrong. There were corporations in the Bible, after all, and that was at least 500 years ago.MrKappus wrote: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 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.
Try harder. Be more funny.Renzo wrote:Naw, you got it all wrong. There were corporations in the Bible, after all, and that was at least 500 years ago.