Lee J. Topp v. Compair Incorporated, Compair Limited, Siebe Plc and E. Barrie Stephens

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that district court erred by holding that subsidiary’s principal place of business was location of a parent company’s headquarters
• finding that nerve center test “was developed for cases involving corporations with complex and farflung activities”
• recognizing separate corporate identity of subsidiary holding company despite evidence that it could not act without the express permission of its parent, and that its sole function was to serve as financial conduit for parent
• recognizing separate corporate identity of subsidiary holding company despite evidence that it could not act without the express permission of its parent, and that its sole function was to serve as financial conduit for parent
• recognizing separate corporate identity of subsidiary holding company despite evidence that it could not act without the express permission of its parent, and that its sole function was to serve as financial conduit for parent
• recognizing separate corporate identity of subsidiary holding company despite evidence that it could not act without the express permission of its parent, and that its sole function was to serve as financial conduit for parent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).