State Ex Rel. Neidig v. Superior National Insurance

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that failure to file timely and accurate forms and make required deposits in order to evade governmental regulation was improper conduct
• describing the circumstances in which two entities under common control can support piercing the corporate veil
• “[P]iercing the cor- porate veil is an extraordinary remedy which exists as a last resort, where there is no other adequate and available remedy to repair plaintiff’s injury.” (Citation and internal quotation marks omitted.)
• “[C]onduct that can be considered ‘improper’” includes “oppressive or manipulative conduct that uses a corporate form to harm a creditor or evade regulation.”
• con- trol must have been exercised “over the specific conduct that led to the plaintiff’s harm”
• “[T]his court’s cases make it clear that veil piercing also may apply to claims against affiliated corporations.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).