Arnett v. Cardwell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that one defendant, “as the CEO, President, and largest individual shareholder, is clearly an officer whose intent could be imputed to the corporation.”
• noting that “a defendant’s ‘actual knowledge is no substitute for service’ ”
• noting that courts have allowed service via counsel
• ultimately quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)
• ultimately quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950)
• related-party transactions involving an individual defendant and vice president of corporate finance of the defendant company

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).