Walkovsky v. Carlton
Court of Appeals of New York, 1966
18 N.Y.2d 414, 223 N.E.2d 6, 276 N.Y.S.2d 585
| Audio Opinion | Coming Soon | |
| Audio Case Brief | Coming Soon |
Brief Fact Summary
Defendant operated a fleet of cabs. The operation had ten different
corporate entities, which were organized to shield the entire operation
from liability.
Rule of Law and Holding
"The law permits the incorporation of a business for the very purpose
of
enabling its proprietors to escape personal liability . . . but . . .
the courts will disregard the corporate form, or, to use accepted
terminology, 'pierce the corporate veil,' whenever necessary 'to
prevent fraud or achieve equity' . . . ."
Three takeaways: (1) You are allowed to setup complex corporations to
cabin liability; (2) in order to get courts to respect the corporate
entities, go through the motions of formalities; and (3) the
distinction between veil piercing and enterprise liability is that
enterprise liability - there is nothing wrong with one corporation
being part of a larger corporate enterprise.
Topics
Corporate Formation & Form
Subtopics
Veil Piercing
This case is in these books
-
Cases and Materials on Corporations
-
Choper, Coffee, Gilson
-
6th Edition
Coming Soon
Click here if you would like to receive an email when this case becomes available.
- Cases and Materials on Corporations
- Choper, Coffee, Gilson
- 6th Edition
Coming Soon
Click here if you would like to receive an email when this case becomes available.