Soerries v. Dancause

How courts have described this case

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

• “[T]he issue of piercing the corporate veil is for the jury, unless there is no evidence sufficient to justify disregarding the corporate form.”
• trial court was authorized to find from the evidence presented that shareholder commingled individual and corporate assets by personally assuming the corporation’s financial liabilities or using corporate funds to pay noncorporate expenses
• claim for corporate veil piercing was supported by evidence that the owner “personally assum[ed] the corporation’s financial liabilities, waiv[ed] corporate rental payments, or us[ed] corporate funds to directly pay his personal mortgage notes and other expenses.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).