Amason v. Whitehead

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• declining to pierce corporate veil where there was “not even a showing of corporate insolvency at the time of the transaction,” although there was a showing of corporate insolvency at the time of trial
• “charge back” or reimbursement for stockholder’s services is evidence of corporate separateness
• sole ownership of a corporation by one person or another corporation is not a factor, and neither is the fact that the sole owner uses and controls it to promote his ends
• “Because the cardinal rule of corporate law is that a corporation possesses a legal existence separate and apart from that of its officers and shareholders the mere operation of corporate business does not render one personally liable for corporate acts.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).