5 Kentucky opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Fontana v. TLD Builders, Inc.green2 sentences2023Judson Atkinson Candies, Inc. v. Latini-Hohberger Dhimantec, 529 F.3d 371, 379 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Fontana v. TLD Builders, Inc., 362 Ill.App.3d 491 , 298 Ill.Dec. 654 , 840 N.E.2d 767, 778 (2005)). 2023Judson Atkinson Candies, Inc. v. Latini-Hohberger Dhimantec, 529 F.3d 371, 379 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Fontana v. TLD Builders, Inc., 362 Ill.App.3d 491 , 298 Ill.Dec. 654 , 840 N.E.2d 767, 778 (2005)). | 2 | 2 |
Judson Atkinson Candies, Inc. v. Latini-Hohberger Dhimantecgreen2 sentences2023Judson Atkinson Candies, Inc. v. Latini-Hohberger Dhimantec, 529 F.3d 371, 379 (7th Cir. 2008) (citing Fontana v. TLD Builders, Inc., 362 Ill.App.3d 491 , 298 Ill.Dec. 654 , 840 N.E.2d 767, 778 (2005)). 2012Judson Atkinson Candies, Inc. v. Latini-Hohberger Dhimantec, 529 F.3d 371, 379 (7th Cir.2008) (citing Fontana v. TLD Builders, Inc., 362 Ill.App.3d 491 , 298 Ill.Dec. 654 , 840 N.E.2d 767, 778 (2005)). | 2 | 2 |
Bankr. L. Rep. P 75,517 Kalb, Voorhis & Co. v. American Financial Corporationgreen1 sentence2012Corp., 8 F.3d 130, 132 (2d Cir.1993) (holding that “[bjecause a corporation is a creature of state law whose primary purpose is to insulate shareholders from legal liability, the state of incorporation has the greater interest in determining when and if that insulation is to be stripped away[ ]”) (citation omitted); U.S. S.E.C. v. Levine, 671 F.Supp.2d 14, 33 (D.D.C.2009) (noting that Nevada law controlled the alter ego analysis, because the entity at issue was incorporated in Nevada); In re Am. | 1 | 1 |
U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission v. Levinegreen1 sentence2012Corp., 8 F.3d 130, 132 (2d Cir.1993) (holding that “[bjecause a corporation is a creature of state law whose primary purpose is to insulate shareholders from legal liability, the state of incorporation has the greater interest in determining when and if that insulation is to be stripped away[ ]”) (citation omitted); U.S. S.E.C. v. Levine, 671 F.Supp.2d 14, 33 (D.D.C.2009) (noting that Nevada law controlled the alter ego analysis, because the entity at issue was incorporated in Nevada); In re Am. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Allied Capital Corp. v. GC-Sun Holdings, L.P.
green
1 sentence2025Allied Capital Corp. v. GC-Sun Holdings, L.P., 910 A.2d 1020 , 1044 n.62 (Del. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Inter-Tel Technologies, Inc. v. Linn Station Properties, LLC
green
1 sentence2020Id. at 166 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Sudamax Industria E Comercio De Cigarros, Ltda v. Buttes & Ashes, Inc.
green
1 sentence2012Interestingly, the district court employed the two-part alter ego test from White and also construed the language in the second factor, “would sanction a fraud or promote injustice,” as requiring a showing of fraud. 516 F.Supp.2d at 849 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
White v. Winchester Land Development Corp.
green
2 sentences2012This formulation involves two elements: “(1) that the corporation is not only influenced by the owners, but also that there is such unity of ownership and interest that their separateness has ceased; and (2) that the facts are such that an adherence to normal attributes, viz, treatment as a separate entity, of separate corporate existence would sanction a fraud or promote injustice.” 584 S.W.2d at 61-62 . 2012Id. at 62 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. The Pepper Source, Caribe Crown, Inc., Gerald Marchese Doing Business as Jamar Corporation
green
2 sentences2012In the leading case of Sear-Land Services, Inc. v. Pepper Source, 941 F.2d 519 (7th Cir.1991), also applying Illinois law, the Court emphasized that either sanctioning fraud or promoting injustice is sufficient to satisfy the second prong of the alter ego test. 2012As for the second part of the alter ego test, there is plainly more here than simply domination of a corporation by its parent/grandparent and a creditor left holding an uncollectible debt: there is the required “injustice.” The Sea-Land Court referred to one unjust situation as a parent corporation causing a subsidiary’s liability and then rendering the subsidiary unable to pay the liability. 941 F.2d at 524 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.