Zimmerman v. Puccio’s Empirical Analysis
613 F.3d 60 · 2010
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1679 · 15 U.S.C. § 1679A · 15 U.S.C. § 1679B · 15 U.S.C. § 1679G · 26 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on Davis v. Michigan Department of the Treasury · Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson · My Bread Baking Co. v. Cumberland Farms, Inc. · Waste Management Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray · 30 Mass. App. Ct. 728 - Evans v. Multicon Construction Corp.
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e tread carefully when determining whether it is appropriate to put aside the basic tenet of corporate law that “corporations — notwithstanding relationships between or among them— ordinarily are regarded as separate and distinct entities,” Scott v. NG U.S. 1, Inc., 450 Mass. 760 , 881 N.E.2d 1125, 1131 (2008), and thereby to “allow a plaintiff to pierce the corporate veil of limited liability.” In re Ontos, Inc., 478 F.3d 427, 432 (1st Cir.2007). In Massachusetts, “the corporate veil will only be pierced in rare situations.” Birbara v. Locke, 99 F.3d 1233, 1239 (1st Cir.1996). Such situations do occur, however, and Massachusetts has recognized that it is the “right and the duty of courts to look beyond the corporate forms” when necessary “for the defeat of fraud or wrong, or the remedying of injustice.” Hanson v. Bradley, 298 Mass. 371 , 10 N.E.2d 259, 264 (1937) (quoted in Scott, 881 N.E.2d at 1132 ). Massachusetts has identified as relevant to the veil-piercing analysis a set of twelve factors. They are: “(1) common ownership; (2) pervasive control; (3) confused intermingling of business assets; (4) thin capitalization; (5) nonobservance of corporate formalities; (6) absence of corporate records; (7) no payment of dividends; (8) insolvency at the time of the litigated transaction; (9) siphoning away of corporation’s funds by dominant shareholder; (10) nonfunction-ing of officers and directors; (11) use of the corporation for transactions of the dominant shareholders; an”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(quoting Barnes v. Fleet Nat'l Bank, N.A. , 370 F.3d 164 , 171 (1st Cir. 2004) )). Construing”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“any person who uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or the mails to sell, provide or perform (or represent that such person can or will sell, provide, or perform) any service, in return for the payment of money or other valuable consideration, for the express or implied purpose of- (i) improving any consumer’s credit record, credit history, or credit rating; or (ii) providing advice or assistance to any consumer with regard to any activity or service described in clause (i) ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Taylor v. Bettis
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.