Evans v. Multicon Construction Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that corporate formalities were observed where the company used its own funds to pay employees and filed separate tax returns and annual certificates of condition
• concluding that this factor was not met where there was “no evidence warranting a finding that [the corporation] was established or operated so as to misrepresent or divert assets”
• explaining that veil-piercing is permissible “in ‘rare particular situations to prevent gross inequity’” (quoting My Bread Baking Co. v. Cumberland Farms, Inc., 353 Mass. 614, 620 (1968)
• refusing, as a matter of law on a post-judgment motion, to disregard a corporate form even though four factors pointed in favor of piercing
• applying Massachusetts law where alleged shell company was incorporated in Ohio and companies to be pierced were incorporated in Ohio
• setting forth the factors that must be considered in determining whether to pierce the corporate veil under Massachusetts law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).