Keels v. Turner
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
CLARK, Judge.
I. Plaintiffs’ Appeal
The plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred in granting the motion of the defendant W. E. Turner under Rule 50 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for a directed verdict. We agree for the two reasons set forth below.
A. Piercing the Corporate Veil.
The evidence clearly indicates that defendant Turner failed to follow the formalities of the corporate organization; consequently, we are able to “pierce the corporate veil” and hold the defendant personally responsible on the instrument. Fidelity Bank v. Bloomfield, 246 N.C. 492, 98 S.E. 2d 865 (1957). See…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Stanback v. StanbackSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- State v. ThorntonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
- State v. TewSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- Goard v. BranscomCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
- State v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- RD&J Properties v. Lauralea-Dilton Enterprises, LLCCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2004
- F.D.I.C. v. Trans Pacific Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
- College Road Animal Hospital, PLLC v. CottrellCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2014
- Telerent Leasing Corp. v. BoazizCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2009
- Decristoforo v. GivensNorth Carolina Business Court · 2015
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.