How cited: Landstar Inway, Inc. v. Samrow · Go Syfert

Landstar Inway, Inc. v. Samrow (2014)

green · 45 citation events across 7 courts. Showing the 8 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2015 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201520202026
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Washing- ton courts have held that a fraud plaintiff must prove, among other things, “the listener’s reliance on the false representation, [] the lis- tener’s right to rely on the representation, and [] damage from re- liance on the false representation.” Landstar Inway Inc. v. Samrow, 325 P.3d 327, 337 (Wash. App. 2014) (citing Baertschi v. Jordan, 413 P.2d 657, 660 (Wash. 1966)).
citing Baertschi v. Jordan, 413 P.2d 657, 660 (Wash. 1966)
Rule Authority · Bankr. E.D. Wash.
Regarding the second element, the plaintiff must “show that disregarding the corporate form is necessary to avoid the consequences of intentional misconduct harmful to the plaintiff.” Landstar Inway Inc. v. Samrow, 181 Wash. App. 109, 123 (2014) (citing Meisel, 97 Wn.2d at 410 ).
citing Meisel, 97 Wn.2d at 410
Rule Authority · Bankr. E.D. Wash.
Regarding the second element, the plaintiff must “show that disregarding the corporate form is necessary to avoid the consequences of intentional misconduct harmful to the plaintiff.” Landstar Inway Inc. v. Samrow, 181 Wash. App. 109, 123 (2014) (citing Meisel, 97 Wn.2d at 410 ).
citing Meisel, 97 Wn.2d at 410
Rule Authority · W.D. Wash.
Plaintiffs in Washington 15 courts must establish two elements for courts to disregard the corporate form: (1) “an 16 abuse of the corporate form”; and (2) a demonstration that “disregarding the corporate 17 form is necessary to avoid the consequences of intentional misconduct harmful to the 18 plaintiff.” Landstar Inway, Inc. v. Samrow, 325 P.3d 327, 336 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014) 19 (citing Meisel v. M&N Modern Hydraulic Press Co., 645 P.2d 689, 692-93 (Wash. 20 1982)).
green Miley v. Pylypets (2019)
Rule Authority · E.D. Wash.
Landstar Inway Inc. v. Samrow, 325 P.3d 327, 337 (Wash. Ct. App. 4 2014); Lindberg v. Roseth, 46 P.3d 518, 522 (Idaho Ct. App. 2001).
Rule Authority · N.D. Ill.
Reynolds Tobacco Co., 84 F.Supp.2d 263, 268-69 (D.R.I.2000); Shah v. Racetrac Petroleum Co., 338 F.3d 557, 571 (6th Cir.2003); Frankoff v. Norman, 448 S.W.3d at 84 (Tex.App.-Hous. (14th Dist.) 2014); Bank of Montreal v. Signet Bank, 193 F.3d 818, 827 (4th Cir.1999); Landstar Inway, Inc. v. Samrow, 181 Wash.App. 109 , 325 P.3d 327, 337 (2014).
Rule Authority · Alaska
Landstar Inway, Inc. v. Samrow, 181 Wash. App. 109 , 325 P.3d 327, 339 (2014).
Cited · W.D. Wash. · signal: accord
Liebergesell v. Evans, 93 Wn.2d 881 , 891–94, 613 P.2d 1170 (1980); accord 13 Landstar Inway, Inc. v. Samrow, 181 Wn.