14 Virginia opinions name it 5 courts 1987–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cheatle v. Rudd's Swimming Pool Supply Co.green2 sentences2011(Tr. 307.) To pierce the corporate veil is to refuse to recognize stockholder immunity and “constitutes an extraordinary exception to be permitted only when it becomes necessary to promote justice.” Cheatle, 234 Va. at 212 , 360 S.E.2d at 831 (internal quotation marks omitted). 2011(Tr. 307.) To pierce the corporate veil is to refuse to recognize stockholder immunity and “constitutes an extraordinary exception to be permitted only when it becomes necessary to promote justice.” Cheatle, 234 Va. at 212 , 360 S.E.2d at 831 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 6 | 11 |
Beale v. Kappa Alpha Ordergreen2 sentences2004However, a refusal to granta shareholder the immunity that the coiporate form provides “constitutes >an extraordinary exception’ to be permitted only when it becomes necessary to promote justice.” Cheatle, 234 Va. at 212 (quoting Beale, 192 Va. at 397 ). 1988To refuse to recognize this immunity is "an extraordinary exception and should be permitted only in cases in which it is necessary to promote justice." Beale v. Kappa Alpha Order, 192 Va. 382, 397 (1951); also Cheatle, supra, at 212 . | 5 | 8 |
Greenberg v. COM. EX REL. ATTY. GEN.green2 sentences2025Att’y Gen., 255 Va. 594, 604 (1998) (quoting Cheatle, 234 Va. at 212 ). 2003See, e.g., Greenberg v. Commonwealth, 255 Va. 594, 604 , 499 S.E.2d 266, 272 (1998). | 2 | 2 |
RF & P CORP. v. Littlegreen1 sentence2019The Court will not disregard a corporate entity “unless it is proved that the corporation is ‘the alter ego, alias, stooge, or dummy of the individuals sought to be 19 [held personally accountable] and that the corporation was a device or sham used to disguise wrongs, obscure fraud, or conceal crime.’” RF&P Corp., 247 Va. at 316 (alteration in original) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
C.F. Trust, Inc. v. First Flight Ltd. Partnershipgreen2 sentences2019Trust, Inc. v. First Flight L.P., 266 Va. 3, 10 (2003). “[O]nly ‘an extraordinary exception’ justifies disregarding the corporate entity and piercing the veil.” Id. (citation omitted). 2019Trust, Inc. v. First Flight L.P., 266 Va. 3, 10 (2003). “[O]nly ‘an extraordinary exception’ justifies disregarding the corporate entity and piercing the veil.” Id. (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bogese v. STATE HWY. & TRANSP. COM'R
green
1 sentence1998Thus, we recognized that only “ ‘an extraordinary exception’ will justify piercing the corporate veil.” Id. at 230, 462 S.E.2d at 348 (quoting Cheatle, 234 Va. at 212 , 360 S.E.2d at 831 ). *403 Accordingly, Bell, who accepted the benefits of corporate ownership, cannot avoid its disadvantages. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.