In Re Estate of Wallen

How courts have described this case

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

• finding no evidence of undercapitalization because regular infusions of cash belied argument that party sought to avoid the claims of his creditors
• finding a veil piercing claim was not barred by claim preclusion, as it did “not appear from the record that decedent was ever sued individually or was ever called upon to defend against the issue of piercing the corporate veil”
• unclear that corporation undercapitalized given nature of the business, where corporation acted merely as facilitator between buyers and sellers and did not maintain an inventory
• unclear that corporation undercapitalized given nature of the business, where corporation acted merely as facilitator between buyers and sellers and did not maintain an inventory
• “it is not always necessary that fraud or a breach of a fiduciary duty relationship be present to impose [a constructive] trust”
• “A party seeking to pierce the corporate veil has the burden of making a substantial showing that one corporation is really a dummy or sham for another ... and courts will pierce the corporate veil only reluctantly.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).