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.
7 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Phillipsgreen2 sentences2012We disagree. ¶ 18 "The second prong of the veil-piercing test is whether justice requires recognizing the substance of the relationship between the corporation and the person or entity sought to be held liable over the form because the corporate fiction was 'used to perpetrate a fraud or defeat a rightful claim."" McCallum Family L.L.C., 221 P.3d at 78 (quoting In re Phillips, 139 P.3d 639, 644 (Colo.2006)). 2009The second prong of the veil-piercing inquiry reflects a recognition that the corporate veil may be pierced "[oluly when the corporate form was used to shield a dominant shareholder's improprieties." Phillips, 139 P.3d at 644 ; see Indus. | 2 | 3 |
Sheffield Services Co. v. Trowbridgegreen2 sentences2013The court of appeals extended the logic of section 7-80-107(1), which allows a plaintiff to assert a veil-piercing claim against an LLC member, "to impose personal liability on LLC managers under the common law "trustee doctrine"" Id. at 723 . 2012See McCallum, 221 P.3d at 79 (removal of all corporate funds to avoid paying debt owed to the corporation's lessor); Sheffield Services, 211 P.3d at 722 (manager of a limited liability company "concealed" transactions and actively transferred funds for the purpose of frustrating claims against the entity); LaFond, 683 P.2d at 369-70 (president and general manager took corporate funds to avoid paying builder for home remodeling work contracted for by the corporation); Rosebud Corp., 39 Colo.App. at 86-89 , 561 P.2d at 369-71 (director "converted" corporate funds to avoid paying lender's promiss | 1 | 2 |
Boulder County Bd. of Com'rs v. Healthsouthgreen1 sentence2017Bd. of Comm’rs v. HealthSouth Corp., 246 P.3d 948, 954 (Colo. 2011). ¶24 Similarly, requiring a petitioner in a dissolution proceeding to plead a veil-piercing claim in the dissolution petition would potentially require the joinder of third parties at the outset of the proceeding. | 1 | 1 |
Rosebud Corp. v. Boggiogreen2 sentences2012See McCallum, 221 P.3d at 79 (removal of all corporate funds to avoid paying debt owed to the corporation's lessor); Sheffield Services, 211 P.3d at 722 (manager of a limited liability company "concealed" transactions and actively transferred funds for the purpose of frustrating claims against the entity); LaFond, 683 P.2d at 369-70 (president and general manager took corporate funds to avoid paying builder for home remodeling work contracted for by the corporation); Rosebud Corp., 39 Colo.App. at 86-89 , 561 P.2d at 369-71 (director "converted" corporate funds to avoid paying lender's promiss 2012See McCallum, 221 P.3d at 79 (removal of all corporate funds to avoid paying debt owed to the corporation's lessor); Sheffield Services, 211 P.3d at 722 (manager of a limited liability company "concealed" transactions and actively transferred funds for the purpose of frustrating claims against the entity); LaFond, 683 P.2d at 369-70 (president and general manager took corporate funds to avoid paying builder for home remodeling work contracted for by the corporation); Rosebud Corp., 39 Colo.App. at 86-89 , 561 P.2d at 369-71 (director "converted" corporate funds to avoid paying lender's promiss | 1 | 1 |
LaFond v. Bashamgreen1 sentence2012See McCallum, 221 P.3d at 79 (removal of all corporate funds to avoid paying debt owed to the corporation's lessor); Sheffield Services, 211 P.3d at 722 (manager of a limited liability company "concealed" transactions and actively transferred funds for the purpose of frustrating claims against the entity); LaFond, 683 P.2d at 369-70 (president and general manager took corporate funds to avoid paying builder for home remodeling work contracted for by the corporation); Rosebud Corp., 39 Colo.App. at 86-89 , 561 P.2d at 369-71 (director "converted" corporate funds to avoid paying lender's promiss | 1 | 1 |
McCallum Family L.L.C. v. Wingergreen2 sentences2012See McCallum, 221 P.3d at 79 (removal of all corporate funds to avoid paying debt owed to the corporation's lessor); Sheffield Services, 211 P.3d at 722 (manager of a limited liability company "concealed" transactions and actively transferred funds for the purpose of frustrating claims against the entity); LaFond, 683 P.2d at 369-70 (president and general manager took corporate funds to avoid paying builder for home remodeling work contracted for by the corporation); Rosebud Corp., 39 Colo.App. at 86-89 , 561 P.2d at 369-71 (director "converted" corporate funds to avoid paying lender's promiss 2012We disagree. ¶ 18 "The second prong of the veil-piercing test is whether justice requires recognizing the substance of the relationship between the corporation and the person or entity sought to be held liable over the form because the corporate fiction was 'used to perpetrate a fraud or defeat a rightful claim."" McCallum Family L.L.C., 221 P.3d at 78 (quoting In re Phillips, 139 P.3d 639, 644 (Colo.2006)). | 1 | 1 |
Industrial Commission v. Lavachgreen2 sentences2009Comm'n v. Lavach, 165 Colo. 433, 436-37 , 439 P.2d 359, 361 (1968). 2009Comm'n v. Lavach, 165 Colo. 433, 436-37 , 439 P.2d 359, 361 (1968). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dill v. Rembrandt Group, Inc
green
1 sentence2024Dill v. Rembrandt Grp., Inc., 2020 COA 69, ¶ 28 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
DCP Midstream, LP v. Anadarko Petroleum Corp.
green
2 sentences2017We perceive no such requirement in the applicable statutes, and we may not add one. ¶3 We further conclude, however, that when InterNACHI objected to the scope of Wife’s subpoena, the district court did not take the active role in managing discovery that DCP Midstream, LP v, Anadarko Petroleum Corn., 2013 CO 36 , 303 P.3d 1187 , requires. 2017We perceive no such requirement in the applicable statutes, and we may not add one. ¶3 We further conclude, however, that when InterNACHI objected to the scope of Wife’s subpoena, the district court did not take the active role in managing discovery that DCP Midstream, LP v, Anadarko Petroleum Corn., 2013 CO 36 , 303 P.3d 1187 , requires. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Wachovia Securities, LLC v. Jahelka
green
1 sentence2012The court further noted that "[uJnder Illinois law, a party who prevails on a veil-piercing claim can recover attorneys' fees if the underlying statute or contract provides for an award of fees." Id. at 1018 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Labadie Coal Co. v. Black
green
1 sentence2009Id. at 98-100 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.