Victoria Elevator Co. of Minneapolis v. Meriden Grain Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a corporation was the alter ego of its owner who controlled the corporation’s finances for his own purposes
• noting that the Court may consider “insufficient capitalization for purposes of corporate undertaking, ... insolvency of debtor corporation at time of transaction in question, siphoning of funds by dominant shareholder, ... and existence of corporation as merely facade for individual dealings”
• “Doing business in a corporate form in order to limit individual liability is not wrong; it is, in fact, one purpose for incorporating.”
• requiring only a finding that the corporate entity was operated in an unjust manner or that some injustice or fundamental unfairness would result from not piercing the corporate veil
• setting out factors for holding sole shareholder liable for corporate debt
• identifying factors relating to corporation whose veil was sought to be pierced

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).