6 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 28 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Spaneas v. Travelers Indemnity Co..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Spaneas v. Travelers Indemnity Co. Anchor | green | “only in rare instances, in order to prevent gross inequity, will a massachusetts court look beyond the corporate form.” | 10 |
| 2 | Penalbert-Rosa v. Fortuno-Burset | green | “ave under special conditions, an adequate complaint must include not only a plausible claim but also a plausible defendant.” | 7 |
| 3 | Birbara v. Locke | green | “my bread sets the standard for deciding when to pierce the corporate veil under massachusetts law; pepsi-cola elucidates some factors that may be considered when engaging in a my bread analysis.” | 3 |
| 4 | Riley v. Tencara, LLC (In Re Wolverine, Proctor & Schwartz, LLC) | green | “although the standards for piercing the corporate veil are articulated most frequently with respect to corporations, this court concludes that the same principles would apply for alter ego liability to attach to members of limited liability companies.” | 3 |
| 5 | Evans v. Multicon Construction Corp. | green | “my bread sets the standard for deciding when to pierce the corporate veil under massachusetts law; pepsi-cola elucidates some factors that may be considered when engaging in a my bread analysis.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.