Heyde v. Xtraman, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that piercing the corporate veil is appropriate where “the corporate entity . . . was improperly used to promote fraud or other injustice,” not merely when a defendant is “unable to satisfy its debt”
• the new case must be substantially similar to parties and causes of action in first case
• original suit against corporate defendant; suit adding sole stockholder after running of statute of limitations not saved
• the new case must be substantially similar to parties and causes of action in first case

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).