Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 Kansas opinions name it 2 courts 1972–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kansas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sampson v. Huntgreen2 sentences2025Sampson v. Hunt, 233 Kan. 572, 579 , 665 P.2d 743 (1983). 2025Sampson v. Hunt, 233 Kan. 572, 579 , 665 P.2d 743 (1983). | 1 | 4 |
Hoffman v. United Telecommunications, Inc.green2 sentences2007See Hoffman v. United Telecommunications, Inc., 575 F. Supp. 1463, 1478 (D. 1995The Hoffman court adopted the 10 factors as set out in Cardwell. 575 F. Supp. at 1478 ; see Intern. | 1 | 3 |
Schmid v. Roehm GmbHgreen2 sentences2001To guide the factfinder in this determination, Kansas law provides 10 factors to assess the unity of interest of separate legal entities: “(1) whether the parent [organization] owns all or a majority of the capital stock of the subsidiary; (2) whether the [organization] have common directors or offi cers; (3) whether the parent [organization] finances the subsidiary; (4) whether the parent [organization] subscribed to all of the capital stock of the subsidiary or otherwise causes its incorporation; (5) whether the subsidiary has grossly inadequate capital; (6) whether the parent [organization] 1995Schmid v. Roehm GmbH, 544 F. Supp. 272 , was an action to recover damages for injuries sustained as a result of defective safety devices on a gun. | 1 | 3 |
Kilpatrick Bros., Inc. v. Poyntergreen2 sentences2011See Kilpatrick Bros., Inc. v. Poynter, 205 Kan. 787 , Syl. ¶ 4, 473 P.2d 33 (1970); Hill v. Kansas Dept. of Labor, 42 Kan. 2011See Kilpatrick Bros., Inc. v. Poynter, 205 Kan. 787 , Syl. ¶ 4, 473 P.2d 33 (1970); Hill v. Kansas Dept. of Labor, 42 Kan. | 1 | 2 |
Dean Operations, Inc. v. One Seventy Associatesgreen2 sentences2001The determination of an organization’s legal status under the alter ego doctrine is a question of fact. 257 Kan. at 682 . 2001To guide the factfinder in this determination, Kansas law provides 10 factors to assess the unity of interest of separate legal entities: “(1) whether the parent [organization] owns all or a majority of the capital stock of the subsidiary; (2) whether the [organization] have common directors or offi cers; (3) whether the parent [organization] finances the subsidiary; (4) whether the parent [organization] subscribed to all of the capital stock of the subsidiary or otherwise causes its incorporation; (5) whether the subsidiary has grossly inadequate capital; (6) whether the parent [organization] | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State Ex Rel. Graeber v. Marion County Landfill, Inc.
green
2 sentences2011Graeber v. Marion County Landfill, Inc., 276 Kan. 328, 355 , 76 P.3d 1000 (2003). 2011Graeber v. Marion County Landfill, Inc., 276 Kan. 328, 355 , 76 P.3d 1000 (2003). | 2 | 2009–2011 |
Herman Quarles v. Fuqua Industries, Inc.
green
2 sentences1995In Quarles , the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals examined an attempt to subject a nonresident parent corporation to *682 jurisdiction through application of the alter ego doctrine where only the subsidiary corporation had transacted business within Kansas. 504 F.2d at 1362-64 . 1995The Quarles court found that the totality of the facts supported the trial court’s conclusion that the participation of the parent in the affairs of the subsidiary did not amount to a domination of the day-to-day business decisions of the subsidiary and held that under the facts jurisdiction could not be established through application of the alter ego doctrine. 504 F.2d at 1364 . | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Hill v. Kansas Department of Labor
green
1 sentence2011See Kilpatrick Bros., Inc. v. Poynter, 205 Kan. 787 , Syl. ¶ 4, 473 P.2d 33 (1970); Hill v. Kansas Dept. of Labor, 42 Kan. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Speer v. Dighton Grain, Inc.
green
2 sentences2009Graeber v. Marion County Landfill, Inc., 276 Kan. 328, 355 , 76 P.3d 1000 (2003) (quoting Speer v. Dighton Grain, Inc., 229 Kan. 272, 279 , 624 P.2d 952 [1981]). 2009Graeber v. Marion County Landfill, Inc., 276 Kan. 328, 355 , 76 P.3d 1000 (2003) (quoting Speer v. Dighton Grain, Inc., 229 Kan. 272, 279 , 624 P.2d 952 [1981]). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Service Iron Foundry, Inc. v. M. A. Bell Co.
green
2 sentences1995A. Bell Co., 2 Kan. 1995In Service Iron Foundry, Inc., the Court of Appeals discussed the 10 factors and found that no single factor is necessarily conclusive in determining whether to apply the alter ego doctrine. 2 Kan. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Farha v. Signal Companies, Inc.
green
2 sentences1975Corporation, Inc., 208 Kan. 777 , 494 P.2d 1087 ; Meehan v. Adams Enterprises, Inc., 211 Kan. 353 , 507 P.2d 849 ; Farha v. Signal Companies, Inc., 216 Kan. 471 , 532 P.2d 1330 ), we find it unnecessary to apply the alter ego doctrine here. 1975Corporation, Inc., 208 Kan. 777 , 494 P.2d 1087 ; Meehan v. Adams Enterprises, Inc., 211 Kan. 353 , 507 P.2d 849 ; Farha v. Signal Companies, Inc., 216 Kan. 471 , 532 P.2d 1330 ), we find it unnecessary to apply the alter ego doctrine here. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Kirk v. HGP Corporation, Inc.
green
2 sentences1975Corporation, Inc., 208 Kan. 777 , 494 P.2d 1087 ; Meehan v. Adams Enterprises, Inc., 211 Kan. 353 , 507 P.2d 849 ; Farha v. Signal Companies, Inc., 216 Kan. 471 , 532 P.2d 1330 ), we find it unnecessary to apply the alter ego doctrine here. 1975Corporation, Inc., 208 Kan. 777 , 494 P.2d 1087 ; Meehan v. Adams Enterprises, Inc., 211 Kan. 353 , 507 P.2d 849 ; Farha v. Signal Companies, Inc., 216 Kan. 471 , 532 P.2d 1330 ), we find it unnecessary to apply the alter ego doctrine here. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Meehan v. Adams Enterprises, Inc.
green
2 sentences1975Corporation, Inc., 208 Kan. 777 , 494 P.2d 1087 ; Meehan v. Adams Enterprises, Inc., 211 Kan. 353 , 507 P.2d 849 ; Farha v. Signal Companies, Inc., 216 Kan. 471 , 532 P.2d 1330 ), we find it unnecessary to apply the alter ego doctrine here. 1975Corporation, Inc., 208 Kan. 777 , 494 P.2d 1087 ; Meehan v. Adams Enterprises, Inc., 211 Kan. 353 , 507 P.2d 849 ; Farha v. Signal Companies, Inc., 216 Kan. 471 , 532 P.2d 1330 ), we find it unnecessary to apply the alter ego doctrine here. | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.