Searcy v. Paul

How courts have described this case

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

• no basis to disregard the corporate fiction absent either “flagrant disregard of corporate barriers” or fraud
• where the court held there was no basis to disregard the corporate fiction unless there is “flagrant disregard of corporate barriers” or fraud
• “[T]he [above-quoted statutory language] was taken by text and periodical writers as broadly abolishing the so-called ‘common employment’ doctrine and permitting third party actions by ... an injured employee against all but his immediate insured employer.”
• “Contemporary comment . . . shows that the statute was taken by text and periodical writers as broadly abolishing the so-called ‘common employment’ doctrine and permitting third-party actions by, or in behalf of, an injured employee against all but his immediate insured employer”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).