Sams v. Redevelopment Authority

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that in condemnation proceedings, the doctrine of unity of use is not applicable if the properties are owned by two different legal entities
• refusing to pierce the corporate veil for unity of ownership purposes
• court refused to treat separate parcels of land, used by distinct legal entities, as a unit for purposes of assessing damages in condemnation proceedings
• “[O]ne cannot choose to accept the benefits incident to a corporate enterprise and at the same time brush aside the corporate form when it works to their (shareholders’) detriment.”
• “[O]ne cannot choose to accept the benefits incident to a corporate enterprise and at the same time brush aside the corporate form when it works to their (shareholders’) detriment.”
• “[0]ne cannot choose to accept the benefits incident to a corporate enterprise and at the same time brush aside the corporate form when it works to their (shareholders’) detriment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).