Kingston Dry Dock Co. v. Lake Champlain Transp. 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 reverse veil-piercing may be appropriate when the subsidiary “interpose[s] … in the conduct of [the parent’s] affairs”
• noting that the instances where reverse veil-piercing might be justified “must be extremely rare”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).