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.
6 Florida opinions name it 1 courts 1976–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Florida 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Chandler, IIgreen2 sentences2015Id. (quoting United States v. Chandler, 36 F.3d 358, 365 (4th Cir.1994)). 1997United States v. Chandler, 36 F.3d 358, 365 (4th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 1792 , 131 L.Ed.2d 721 (1995). | 3 | 3 |
No. 94-6643green1 sentence1996The Eleventh Circuit noted that courts must ask: “Given the .offense for which the owner is being punished, is the fine (imposed by the civil forfeiture) excessive?” United States v. One Parcel of Property Located at 427 and 429 Hall Street, Montgomery, Montgomery County, Ala, 74 F.3d 1165, 1172 (11th Cir.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Fmc Finance Corporation v. Albert D. Murphree, Jr. And Dorothy E. Murphreegreen2 sentences1982Because the instrumentality rule is "essentially equitable in character, the conditions under which a corporate entity may be disregarded vary, depending upon the circumstances in each case. [Citations omitted.] It is therefore inappropriate to attempt to apply any verbalization of the test in a mechanical manner." FMC Finance Corp. v. Murphree, 632 F.2d 413, 422 (5th Cir.1980). *599 A number of courts have suggested that the following factors are relevant in determining the applicability of the instrumentality rule. [5] (1) The parent corporation owns all or majority of the capital stock of t 1982Because the instrumentality rule is "essentially equitable in character, the conditions under which a corporate entity may be disregarded vary, depending upon the circumstances in each case. [Citations omitted.] It is therefore inappropriate to attempt to apply any verbalization of the test in a mechanical manner." FMC Finance Corp. v. Murphree, 632 F.2d 413, 422 (5th Cir.1980). *599 A number of courts have suggested that the following factors are relevant in determining the applicability of the instrumentality rule. [5] (1) The parent corporation owns all or majority of the capital stock of t | 1 | 1 |
Krivo Industrial Supply Company and Morgan Precision Parts, Inc. v. National Distillers and Chemical Corporationgreen1 sentence1982The degree of control necessary to sustain liability under the instrumentality rule has been characterized as "total domination of the subservient corporation, to the extent that the subservient corporation manifests no separate corporate interests of its own and functions solely to achieve the purposes of the dominant corporation." Krivo Industrial Supply Co. v. National Distillers & Chemical Corp., 483 F.2d 1098, 1106 (5th Cir.1973), modified per curiam, 490 F.2d 916 (5th Cir.1974). | 1 | 1 |
Brown v. Margrande Compania Naviera, S. A.green1 sentence1976Indiscriminate application would destroy the purpose of the corporate law." Brown v. Margrande Compania Naviera, 281 F. Supp. 1004, 1006 (E.D.Va. 1968). | 1 | 1 |
Kathryn E. Steven, Administratrix of the Estate of George A. Steven, Deceased v. Roscoe Turner Aeronautical Corporationgreen2 sentences1976(Emphasis supplied) The tests to be applied for the instrumentality rule were set out in Steven v. Roscoe Turner Aeronautical Corp., 324 F.2d 157, 160 (7th Cir.1963): "In order to establish that a subsidiary is the mere instrumentality of its parent, three elements must be proved: control by the parent to such a degree that the subsidiary has become its mere instrumentality; fraud or wrong by the parent through its subsidiary, e.g., torts, violation of a statute or stripping the subsidiary of its assets; and unjust loss or injury to the claimant, such as insolvency of the subsidiary." 324 F.2d 1976(Emphasis supplied) The tests to be applied for the instrumentality rule were set out in Steven v. Roscoe Turner Aeronautical Corp., 324 F.2d 157, 160 (7th Cir.1963): "In order to establish that a subsidiary is the mere instrumentality of its parent, three elements must be proved: control by the parent to such a degree that the subsidiary has become its mere instrumentality; fraud or wrong by the parent through its subsidiary, e.g., torts, violation of a statute or stripping the subsidiary of its assets; and unjust loss or injury to the claimant, such as insolvency of the subsidiary." 324 F.2d | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Florida. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hedges ex rel. Beckett v. Resolution Trust Corp.
green
2 sentences1997United States v. Chandler, 36 F.3d 358, 365 (4th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 1792 , 131 L.Ed.2d 721 (1995). 1997United States v. Chandler, 36 F.3d 358, 365 (4th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 1792 , 131 L.Ed.2d 721 (1995). | 2 | 1996–1997 |
Wojnar v. City of Tarpon Springs ex rel. Tarpon Springs Police Department
green
2 sentences2015Id. 2015Id. (quoting United States v. Chandler, 36 F.3d 358, 365 (4th Cir.1994)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. Bajakajian
green
2 sentences2010In United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 , 118 S.Ct. 2028 , 141 L.Ed.2d 314 (1998), the United States Supreme Court addressed the meaning of the term “instrumentality.” In that ease, the claimant was arrested as she exited the United States in possession of $357,144 in United States currency. 2010In United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 , 118 S.Ct. 2028 , 141 L.Ed.2d 314 (1998), the United States Supreme Court addressed the meaning of the term “instrumentality.” In that ease, the claimant was arrested as she exited the United States in possession of $357,144 in United States currency. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Varity Corp. v. Howe
green
1 sentence1997United States v. Chandler, 36 F.3d 358, 365 (4th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1082 , 115 S.Ct. 1792 , 131 L.Ed.2d 721 (1995). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Vantage View, Inc. v. Bali East Development Corp.
green
1 sentence1982Although there are conflicting lines of cases on this point, we took a definitive position in Vantage View, Inc. v. Bali East Development Corp., 421 So.2d 728 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), and said that we intend to "follow the decision of the supreme court in Barnes , [1] Mayer, [2] Aztec [3] and Levenstein [4] which have held it sufficient to allege domination and control without the necessity of alleging improper purpose or unjust loss." Whether a subsidiary is a mere instrumentality is normally a question of fact for the jury. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Krivo Industrial Supply Company, Morgan Precision Parts, Inc. v. National Distillers and Chemical Corporation
green
1 sentence1982The degree of control necessary to sustain liability under the instrumentality rule has been characterized as "total domination of the subservient corporation, to the extent that the subservient corporation manifests no separate corporate interests of its own and functions solely to achieve the purposes of the dominant corporation." Krivo Industrial Supply Co. v. National Distillers & Chemical Corp., 483 F.2d 1098, 1106 (5th Cir.1973), modified per curiam, 490 F.2d 916 (5th Cir.1974). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.