11 Pennsylvania opinions name it 3 courts 1844–2026 8 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lumax Industries, Inc. v. Aultmangreen2 sentences2026The Superior Court expressed that, in Lumax, this Court “cited favorably the Commonwealth Court’s enumeration of factors relevant to the piercing inquiry: undercapitalization, failure to adhere to corporate formalities, substantial intermingling of corporate and personal affairs[,] and use of the corporate form to perpetrate a fraud.” Id. (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2026The Superior Court expressed that, in Lumax, this Court “cited favorably the Commonwealth Court’s enumeration of factors relevant to the piercing inquiry: undercapitalization, failure to adhere to corporate formalities, substantial intermingling of corporate and personal affairs[,] and use of the corporate form to perpetrate a fraud.” Id. (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 4 | 6 |
Ashley v. Ashleygreen2 sentences2023In Ashley v. Ashley, 393 A.2d 637, 641 (Pa. 1978), we held that the corporate form may be disregarded “whenever one in control of a corporation uses that control, or uses the corporate assets, to further his or her own personal interests.” And in Lumax Indus., Inc. v. Aultman, 669 A.2d 893, 895 (Pa. 1995), we cited favorably the Commonwealth Court’s enumeration of factors relevant to ____________________________________________ 46 Aufman also challenges the trial court’s decision to disregard Hunley’s corporate form and impose indemnification liability on him. 2023In Ashley [v. Ashley, 393 A.2d 637, 641 (Pa. 1978)], we held that the corporate form may be disregarded “whenever one in control of a corporation uses that control, or uses the corporate assets, to further his or her own personal interests.” And in Lumax[ Indus., Inc. v. Aultman, 669 A.2d 893, 895 (Pa. 1995)], we cited favorably the Commonwealth Court’s enumeration of factors relevant to the piercing inquiry: “undercapitalization, failure to adhere to corporate formalities, substantial intermingling of corporate and personal affairs, and use of the corporate form to perpetrate a fraud.” Mortim | 3 | 3 |
Wedner Unemployment Compensation Casegreen2 sentences2021Our Superior Court has observed that “there appears to be no clear test or settled rule in 9 Wedner v. Unemployment Bd. of Review, 296 A.2d 792, 794 (Pa. 1972). 10 Commonwealth by Shapiro v. Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care LLC, 194 A.3d 1010, 1034-35 (Pa. 2018) (cleaned up). 11 Village at Camelback Prop. 2021Our Superior Court has observed that “there appears to be no clear test or settled rule in 9 Wedner v. Unemployment Bd. of Review, 296 A.2d 792, 794 (Pa. 1972). 10 Commonwealth by Shapiro v. Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care LLC, 194 A.3d 1010, 1034-35 (Pa. 2018) (cleaned up). 11 Village at Camelback Prop. | 2 | 2 |
In re Interest of S.S.P.green2 sentences2021Our Superior Court has observed that “there appears to be no clear test or settled rule in 9 Wedner v. Unemployment Bd. of Review, 296 A.2d 792, 794 (Pa. 1972). 10 Commonwealth by Shapiro v. Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care LLC, 194 A.3d 1010, 1034-35 (Pa. 2018) (cleaned up). 11 Village at Camelback Prop. 2021Our Superior Court has observed that “there appears to be no clear test or settled rule in 9 Wedner v. Unemployment Bd. of Review, 296 A.2d 792, 794 (Pa. 1972). 10 Commonwealth by Shapiro v. Golden Gate Nat’l Senior Care LLC, 194 A.3d 1010, 1034-35 (Pa. 2018) (cleaned up). 11 Village at Camelback Prop. | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Riggins
green
2 sentences1979Such an enumeration circumscribes the “unlimited, unstructured and irrevocable discretion” which the Riggins Court found offensive. 2 Commonwealth v. Riggins, supra, 474 Pa. at 123 , 377 A.2d at 144 . 1979Such an enumeration circumscribes the “unlimited, unstructured and irrevocable discretion” which the Riggins Court found offensive. 2 Commonwealth v. Riggins, supra, 474 Pa. at 123 , 377 A.2d at 144 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Shakespeare v. Fidelity Insurance, Trust & Safe Deposit Co.
green
1 sentence1928In Shakespeare v. Fidelity Trust Co., 97 Pa. 173 , the Supreme Court, in deciding, under the peculiar facts of that case, that the bonds were no part of the. estate of the decedent within this Commonwealth, said by way of analogy (page 178) : “It was as if the bonds had been placed in a fire-proof of the defendants of which the decedent possessed the key.” The comparison is not to-day accurate, as the renter of a safe deposit-box has a key and so does the bank, and it is only by the use of both keys that a box may be opened. | 1 | 1928–1928 |
Ewing v. Barras
neutral
1 sentence1844In relation to the third class of requisites, the locality of the building, there is some latitude given; the Act allows “the size and number of the stories or such other matters of description as shall be sufficient to identify it,” and this was the ground of the decision in Ewing v. Barras, ( 4 Watts & Serg. 467 ). | 1 | 1844–1844 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.