McCormick v. City of Dillingham

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that so long as a complaint provides notice, plaintiff can recover under any theory supported by the evidence
• upholding lower court's decision to pierce corporate veil even though first factor was not satisfied and fifth factor was not directly addressed
• allowing a party to proceed on a veil piercing theory after originally bringing suit on a de facto partnership theory
• affirming the applicability of the six-factor Uchitel test for piercing the corporate veil and holding those individuals in control of the corporation personally liable for the misdeeds of the corporation
• “When considering whether the moving party is entitled to summary judgment, we construe the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party . . . .”
• “Although McCormick can point to anomalies in the codification of the sales tax . . . he has not established that the city failed to comply with the law.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).