Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 99 F.3d 1233 - Birbara v. Locke

Birbara v. Locke’s Empirical Analysis

99 F.3d 1233 · 1996

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
3
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 13 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Noonan v. Winston Co. (1998), United States of America v. Swiss American Bank Ltd et al. (1999)

15 federal appellate · 13 district · 5 state decisions

170199620002010decided

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 Norton Ex Rel. Chiles v. Mathews · United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America v. Pleasant Street Corporation United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America · My Bread Baking Co. v. Cumberland Farms, Inc. · Farrell v. Massachusetts · Commonwealth v. Beneficial Finance Company

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

  1. “The relevant factors 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) nonfunctioning of officers and directors; (11) use of the corporation for transactions of the dominant shareholders; and (12) use of the corporation in promoting fraud.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “fraudulent or injurious consequence of the intercorporate relationship”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “My Bread sets the standard for deciding when to pierce the corporate veil under Massachusetts law; Pepsi-Cola elucidates some factors that may be considered when engaging in a My Bread analysis.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.