Simmons v. Clark Equipment Credit Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “[gjrantors in a conveyance assailed as being fraudulent are not necessary parties defendant,” and “[t]he only time the debtor [grantor] is a necessary party is when he has an outstanding interest in the property that was not included in the fraudulent conveyance”
• A finding that an individual is the alter ego of a corporation is “usually a question for the trier of fact”
• “[MJere domination cannot be enough for piercing the corporate veil. There must be the added elements of misuse of control and harm or loss resulting from it.”
• the corporate veil should not be pierced when the plaintiff “knew of the corporate existence and contracted with the corporation as a corporation. [Plaintiff] recognized a distinction between the corporation and [defendant.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).