Michigan Supreme Court· 2/11/1985

Wells v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

Citations

364 N.W.2d 670
421 Mich. 641

How courts have described this case

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

concluding that the plaintiff-employee of a subsidiary, who disregarded separate corporate forms in order to obtain worker’s compensation benefits from the parent corporation, could not then rely on existence of separate corporate forms to maintain a tort action
disregarding corporate distinction between employer and subsidiary where allowing suit would have contravened public policy behind workers’ compensation statute
the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil is typically applied to protect a corporation’s creditors where the corporate entity has been used to avoid legal obligations
“If a statute is to be construed liberally when an employee seeks benefits, it should not be construed differently when the employer asserts it as a defense to a tort action”
\We recognize the general principle that in Michigan separate entities will be respected.\
“We recognize the general principle that in Michigan separate entities will be respected.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Williams, Ryan, Brickley, Cavanagh, Kavanagh, Boyle, Levin

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

86 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

54 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Wells v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Wells v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.
Michigan Court of Appeals· 1980-06-03· cited 11×

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.