514 So. 2d 892 - Messick v. Moring’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably POWER EQUIPMENT v. First Alabama Bank (1991), 676 So. 2d 1265 - Adams v. Robertson (1995)
2 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Lowendahl v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad · Cohen v. Williams · Moore & Handley Hardware Co. v. Towers Hardware Co. · 384 So. 2d 1076 - Woods v. Commercial Contractors, Inc. · 408 So. 2d 490 - Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc. v. Barrentine
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In an attempt to circumvent some of the difficulties in applying conclusory terms such as 'instrumentality,' 'alter ego' and 'adjunct,' we announced, in Kwick Set Components, Inc. v. Davidson Ind., Inc. , 411 So.2d 134 (Ala. 1982), a standard to be applied in order to determine whether the corporate entity should be disregarded when excessive control is the ground. While acknowledging that the dominating party may be an individual or another corporation, we stated the elements essential for imposition of liability on the dominant party as follows: "1) The dominant party must have complete control and domination of the subservient corporation's finances, policy and business practices so that at the time of the attacked transaction the subservient corporation had no separate mind, will, or existence of its own; "2) The control must have been misused by the dominant party. Although fraud or the violation of a statutory or *Page 1335 other positive legal duty is misuse of control, when it is necessary to prevent injustice or inequitable circumstances, misuse of control will be presumed; "3) The misuse of this control must proximately cause the harm or unjust loss complained of. Lowendahl v. Baltimore O. Ry. , 247 A.D. 144 , 287 N.Y.S. 62 (1936)."”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In certain situations the corporate entity will be disregarded and limited stockholder liability will be denied. The following factors are commonly used as justification for `piercing the corporate veil' and imposing personal liability on shareholders or imposing liability on a controlling corporation: 1) inadequacy of capital; 2) fraudulent purpose in conception *Page 860 or operation of the business; 3) operation of the corporation as an instrumentality or alter ego. Piercing the Corporate Veil in Alabama: In Search of a Standard , 35 Ala. L.Rev. 311 (1984). "Initially, we note that it is under the third theory that [the plaintiffs] contend that the corporate entity should be disregarded. Alabama law has recognized that in proper situations, when the corporate form is being used to evade personal responsibility, the corporate form will be disregarded and liability will be imposed on the person controlling the corporation and subverting it to his personal use by the conduct of its business in a manner to make it merely his instrumentality. Cohen v. Williams , 294 Ala. 417 , 318 So.2d 279 (1975). Although the limitation of personal liability is a valid corporate attribute, the corporate entity will be disregarded when it is used solely to avoid a personal liability of the owner while reserving to the owner the benefits gained through use of the corporate name. Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc. v. Barrentine , 408 So.2d 490 (Ala. 1981) (citing Woods v. Commercial Contractors, Inc. ,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“from which the trier of fact may conclude that the undercapitalization of Holland's Cars, Inc., is a factor that suggests it would be proper to pierce the veil. Thus, AmSouth has presented substantial evidence creating genuine issues of material fact, and Mr. Holland was not entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. As to the argument regarding money had and received, this Court has stated that”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.