Crum v. Krol

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that \the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Crum and Thomas Crum & Associates to be treated as a single entity\
• holding that “the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Crum and Thomas Crum & Associates to be treated as a single entity”
• piercing corporate veil on behalf of shareholder who neglected to join corporation as plaintiff in suit on corporate contract
• piercing corporate veil on behalf of shareholder who neglected to join corporation as plaintiff in suit on corporate contract
• piercing corporate veil of one man company to allow stacking of survivor’s benefits under no-fault insurance coverage
• “if a writing indicates that an agreement to sell realty is subject to final approval by a third party, ... the writing may be deemed ... incomplete as a final contract”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).