Brown v. Benton Creosoting Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

29 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"* * * As was stated in Keller v. Haas, [ 202 La. 486 , 12 So.2d 238 ] supra: " `It is well settled that where an individual forms a corporation of which he is the sole and only stockholder or owns such control of the stock that the act of the corporation is his own, then he may not use the screen of corporate entity to absolve himself from responsibility. Lindstrom v. Sauer, La.App., 166 So. 636 ; Alliance Trust Co. v. Streater, 182 La. 102 , 161 So. 168 ; Superior Oil Co. v. Baltar, 181 La. 908 , 160 So. 626 ; Wilson v. Lagasse, 12 La.App. 704 , 127 So. 17 ; Heard v. Monroe Sand & Gravel Co., 9 La. App. 568 , 121 So. 642 ; State v. F. B. Williams Cypress Co., 131 La. 62 , 58 So. 1033 .' "In the case of Mayo v. Pioneer Bank & Trust Company [5 Cir., 274 F.2d 320 ], supra, the court stated: "`* * * The corporation law of Louisiana is no different from the corporation law of all the other states in general recognition of a corporation as a separate entity—for purposes of convenience and to serve the ends of justice. But when the corporate fiction is a mere simulacrum, an alter ego or business conduit of an individual, it may be disregarded in the interest of securing a just determination of the action. See 13 Am.Jur., Corporations, § 7; 1 Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporations § 41 (1931); Latty, The Corporate Entity as a Solvent of Legal Problems, 34 Mich.L.Rev. 599 (1936), to cite just one of many law review articles on the subject; the cases collected in the annotations, 1 A.L.R. ”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kingsman Enterprises, Inc. v. Bakerfield Elec. Co., Inc. · 433 So. 2d 750 - American Bank of Welch v. Smith Aviation, Inc.

2. “"* * * [N]o meetings of the shareholders or directors were held after the organizational proceedings were had. No bank account was maintained by the corporation, but all receipts, whether by check or cash, were remitted to and deposited in the account of Kennedy Sawmills, Inc. Invoices for materials sold instructed the purchasers to remit directly to Kennedy Sawmills, Inc. The books of the corporation were kept in the office of Kennedy Sawmills, Inc., whose checks paid the operating expenses of the corporation, for, as stated, the corporation maintained no bank account.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kingsman Enterprises, Inc. v. Bakerfield Elec. Co., Inc. · 207 So. 2d 882 - Hebert v. Wiegand

3. “"The conclusion is, therefore, inescapable that Kennedy Sawmills, Inc., is the mere alter ego of Benton Creosoting Co., Inc. Keller v. Haas, 202 La. 486 , 12 So.2d 238 ; Lindstrom v. Sauer, La.App. Orleans, 1936, 166 So. 636 ; Mayo v. Pioneer Bank & Trust Company, U.S.C.A. 5th Cir., La., 1960, 274 F.2d 320 . The effect of the arrangement was to place Kennedy Sawmills, Inc., in possession as owner and operator of the business purportedly conducted under the name of Benton Creosoting, Co., Inc. The result was that the business conducted was that of Kennedy Sawmills, Inc., over which it had full management and entire control. Under such circumstances, Kennedy Sawmills, Inc., is not permitted to cloak itself behind the corporate entity of Benton Creosoting Co., Inc., to shield itself from responsibility. Kennedy Sawmills, Inc., is, therefore, bound to the same extent that Benton Creosoting Co., Inc., itself is bound."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 330 So. 2d 649 - Coco v. Winston Industries, Inc.