Skip to main content

Eure v. Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corp.

Citations

  • 561 S.E.2d 663
  • 263 Va. 624
  • 2002 Va. LEXIS 66

How courts have described this case

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

  • placing the burden of proof on the party asserting that a court should “disregard” the separate legal identity of a corporation
  • applying a mixed standard of review to determine whether to “disregard” the separate corporate natures of a parent and subsidiary entity
  • finding that “different interpretations and inherent conflicts demonstrate ambiguity”
  • applying this burden of proof in the context of piercing the corporate veil
  • stating “on appeal we are not bound by the trial court’s interpretation of the contract provision at issue; rather, we have an equal opportunity to consider the words of the contract within the four corners of the instrument itself’
  • an appellate court has ‘“an equal opportunity to consider the words of the contract within the four corners of the instrument itself”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Donald W. Lemons

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

55 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.