Flocco v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

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 viability of the derivative action is determined by law of Illinois, the state of incorporation
• noting that facts outside the record are ordinarily not considered absent a motion to supplement the record
• noting that the transacting-business prong goes as far as due process permits, and then applying a limited fiduciary shield doctrine based on a federal district court decision that itself had erroneously held that the Due Process Clause includes such a doctrine
• applying Illinois law to a double derivative action involving a corporate entity
• “[A] corporation may not pierce its own veil, because to do so would have the effect of denying the corporation its own corporate existence.” (internal quotations omitted)
• “[J]urisdiction over an employee does not automatically follow from jurisdiction over the corporation which employs him.” (quoting Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 781 n.13 (1984)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).