152 Mich. App. 548 - Belleville v. Hanby’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he lawsuit filed by plaintiffs against Hanby and Stivers was not one principally geared to establishing a right to recover for a personal injury. Rather, having already obtained a judgment against the corporation on their personal injury claim, plaintiffs sought, through the lawsuit at issue here, to establish that the judgment obtained against the corporation was also a judgment against the defendants in their individual capacities. The only issue presented in this cause of action are those concerned with piercing the corporate veil and establishing that defendants were the alter egos of the corporation. At no time did plaintiffs raise the issue typically associated with a personal injury claim, i.e., that plaintiff received an injury as a result of some negligent act or omission of the defendants. Thus, in its most basic sense, this was an action to establish an identity of interest between these defendants and the Shape-Up Shoppe.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Oceanics Schools, Inc. v. Barbour · 722 F. Supp. 1468 - United States v. Clawson Medical Rehabilitation & Pain Care Center, P.C.

2. “The statute of limitations in New York for actions to enforce a judgment is twenty years. This action was commenced within the twenty-year period. Defendant contends that this statute of limitations is not appropriate for an action seeking to pierce the corporate veil and that the statute of limitations for the underlying action must be used.... A plaintiff may attempt to enforce a judgment against individuals or corporations allegedly controlling the judgment debt- or using a theory of piercing the corporate veil. The defendant, ..., contends that the acts comprising the claims which would permit the plaintiff to pierce the corporate veil are within the scope of the six-year statute of limitations for fraud actions,.... Under the alter ego and instrumentality theories the corporation and those who have controlled the corporation are treated as but one entity. Thus, the statute of limitations applicable to the corporation should apply to those who are using the corporation as an instrumentality. The action accrued against both the corporation and any alter egos when the judgment was entered. The action to enforce the money judgment is therefore timely.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Oceanics Schools, Inc. v. Barbour

3. “In determining which limitation period controls, the focus must be on the type of interest allegedly harmed. ... The gravamen of an action is determined by reading the claim as a whole. ... Further, this Court will look beyond procedural labels to see exactly what a party's complaint is before deciding whether it should be barred.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Trowell v. Providence Hosp. & Med. Ctrs., Inc.