green
Positive treatment
4.3 score
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
prod.liab.rep. (Cch) P 14,358 Marianne E. Fletcher, Nancy L. Bartley, Raphael Paganelli, and Charlotte Evans v. Atex, Inc., Eastman Kodak Company, and Jenny L. Hermanson and Christy Scattarella v. 805 Middlesex Corp., F/k/a Atex, Inc., and Apple Computers, Inc., Eastman Kodak Company
Id. at 1085.
discussed
Cited "see"
Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Pension v. Lutyk
See Galgay v. Gangloff, 677 F.Supp. 295, 301-02 (M.D.Pa.1987), aff'd, 932 F.2d 959 (3d Cir.1991) (table) (delinquent contributions held to be assets pursuant to the terms of the wage agreement); Young v. West Coast Industrial Relations Assoc., Inc., 763 F.Supp. 64, 75 (D.Del.1991) (in case involving 18 U.S.C. § 664 , an analogous criminal statute, delinquent contributions held to be debt, not vested assets, where agreement stated that employer was liable for “all arrears in payment” of ERISA plan contributions), aff 'd without opinion, 961 F.2d 1570 (3rd Cir.1992); PMTA-ILA Containerizati…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Lasky
See Galgay v. Gangloff, 677 F.Supp. 295, 301 (M.D.Pa.1987), aff'd without op., 932 F.2d 959 (3rd Cir.1991) (employer is liable as a fiduciary where agreement stated that “[t]itle to all monies paid into and/or due and owing said fund shall be vested in and remain exclusively in the trustees of the fund”); In re Consolidated Welfare Fund ERISA Litigation, 839 F.Supp. 1068 , 1073 (S.D.N.Y.1993) (monthly payments required of employers were expressly included within definition of the “trust estate”); Panepinto, supra, 818 F.Supp. at 51 (employer contributions considered “assets” of the…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Kertesz v. GVC and Korn
See, e.g., Harper v. Delaware Valley Broadcasters, Inc., 743 F.Supp. 1076, 1085-86 (D.Del.1990) (relying in part on plaintiffs inside knowledge to reject unfairness element of alter-ego claim under Delaware law), aff'd, 932 F.2d 959 (3d Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Plumbers Local 98 Defined Benefit Pension Fund v. M & P Master Plumbers of Michigan, Inc.
See e.g., Galgay v. Gangloff, 677 F.Supp. 295 (M.D.Pa.1987), aff'd, 932 F.2d 959 (3d Cir.1991) (delinquent contributions held to be plan assets pursuant to the terms of a wage agreement); Trustees of the National Elevator Indust.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Board of Trustees of the Airconditioning & Refrigeration Industry Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. J.R.D. Mechanical Services, Inc.
See, e.g., Galgay v. Gangloff, 677 F.Supp. 295, 301-02 (M.D.Pa.1987), aff'd, 932 F.2d 959 (3rd Cir.1991) (relying on the language of the Wage Agreement to determine what constituted plan assets because ERISA does not define assets); Young v. West Coast Indus.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Occidental Fire & Casualty Company of North Carolina, a North Carolina Corporation Azstar Casualty Company, an Arizona Corporation v. Great Plains Capital Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Occidental Fire & Casualty Company of North Carolina, a North Carolina Corporation Azstar Casualty Company, an Arizona Corporation v. Great Plains Capital Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, and Gennaro J. Orrico, Husband Colleen M. Orrico, Wife
Mobil Oil Corp. v. Linear Films, Inc., 718 F.Supp. 260, 267-68 (D.Del.1989); see also Harper v. Delaware Valley Broadcasters, Inc., 743 F.Supp. 1076, 1085-86 (D.Del.1990) ("An overall element of injustice or unfairness must always be present.") (internal quotations omitted), aff'd, 932 F.2d 959 (3d Cir.1991). 37 As to Gennaro, the district court found that he exercised near total domination and control of GPCC and of AGA, and that he operated all his businesses to maximize his interest.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fletcher v. Atex, Inc.
Under Delaware law, “a court can pierce the corporate veil of an entity where there is fraud or where [it] is in fact a mere instrumentality or alter ego of its owner.” Geyer v. Ingersoll Publications Co., 621 A.2d 784, 793 (Del.Ch.1992) (emphasis added); see also Harper v. Delaware Valley Broadcasters, Inc., 743 F.Supp. 1076, 1085 (D.Del.1990), aff'd, 932 F.2d 959 (3d Cir.1991) (recognizing alter ego theory as “something of a new development in the Delaware [state] courts”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Donophan (Bruce Louis), Riley (James), Bowman (Hal), Andrews (David), Welsh (Edwin, Jr.)
v.
Sullivan (John, Commissioner), Redman (Walter), Gulledge (Thomas), Caulk (Rodney), Ewing (John), Shockley (Richard), Dixon (Floyd), Bankus (Michael), Person (David), Burris (Elizabeth), Ferguson (Mail Room Off.), Bartsch (John), Hilts (Edna), Hobler (Bruce), Wolfson (Bob), Russemm (Norris), Shieker (Bruce), Hall (Charles), Spencer (Alexander), Colburn (Pop), Segars (Clyde), Bourne
v.
Sullivan (John, Commissioner), Redman (Walter), Gulledge (Thomas), Caulk (Rodney), Ewing (John), Shockley (Richard), Dixon (Floyd), Bankus (Michael), Person (David), Burris (Elizabeth), Ferguson (Mail Room Off.), Bartsch (John), Hilts (Edna), Hobler (Bruce), Wolfson (Bob), Russemm (Norris), Shieker (Bruce), Hall (Charles), Spencer (Alexander), Colburn (Pop), Segars (Clyde), Bourne
89-3740.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Apr 15, 1991.
Published
Donophan (Bruce Louis), Riley (James), Bowman (Hal), Andrews
(David), Welsh (Edwin, Jr.)
v.
Sullivan (John, Commissioner), Redman (Walter), Gulledge
(Thomas), Caulk (Rodney), Ewing (John), Shockley (Richard),
Dixon (Floyd), Bankus (Michael), Person (David), Burris
(Elizabeth), Ferguson (Mail Room Off.), Bartsch (John),
Hilts (Edna), Hobler (Bruce), Wolfson (Bob), Russemm
(Norris), Shieker (Bruce), Hall (Charles), Spencer
(Alexander), Colburn (Pop), Segars (Clyde), Bourne
NO. 89-3740
United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.
APR 15, 1991
Appeal From: D.Del.,
Farnan, J.
1
APPEAL DISMISSED.