Geyer v. Ingersoll Publications Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that a corporate veil of an entity may be pierced “where there is fraud or where a subsidiary is in fact a mere instrumentality or alter ego of its owner.”
• upholding alter ego claim where plaintiff “alleged specific facts that are not merely conclusory but are sufficient to pierce [the] corporate veil”
• following Mabon and denying to apply a no-recourse provision to an alter-ego claim because “an alter ego claim is distinct from a contract claim and is equitable in nature” and “the no recourse provision does not bar equitable claims.”
• specific allegations about the use of the corporate form to perpetrate fraud sufficient to withstand motion to dismiss
• “[W]hen the insolvency exception does arise, it creates fiduciary duties for directors for the benefit of creditors”
• specific allegations about the use of the corporate form to perpetrate fraud sufficient to withstand motion to dismiss

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).