Seasword v. Hilti, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the corporate veil “may be pierced only where an otherwise separate corporate existence has been used to subvert justice or cause a result that is contrary to some other clearly overriding public policy”
• refusing to apply the apparent manufacturer doctrine because \Michigan's existing theories of seller liability and related tort doctrines ... preclude the need for an apparent-manufacturer doctrine\
• refusing to apply the apparent manufacturer doctrine because \Michigan's existing theories of seller liability and related tort doctrines ... preclude the need for an apparent-manufacturer doctrine\
• “Michigan law presumes that, absent some abuse of corporate form, parent and subsidiary corporations are separate and distinct entities.”
• “Michigan law presumes that, absent some abuse of corporate form, parent and subsidiary corporations are separate and distinct entities.”
• “Michigan courts have generally required that a must become a mere instrumentality of the before its separate corporate existence will be disregarded.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).