Danziger v. Luse
Ohio Supreme Court
1DissentO’Donnell, J.
{¶ 27} Treatment of the bank in this case as the alter ego of Croghan Bancshares, Inc. represents an unprecedented departure from the traditional application of the alter-ego doctrine. A review of cases from across the country reveals that courts are reluctant to disregard the separate corporate existence of a subsidiary company that conducts its business in corporate form. The facts of this case demonstrate the existence of a classic parent-subsidiary corporate relationship and do not support the majority’s conclusion that Croghan “so controls and dominates the [bank] that the separate…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- United States v. BestfoodsSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- State, Dept. of Environ. Protect. v. Ventron Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1983
- Berkey v. Third Avenue Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1926
- Belvedere Condominium Unit Owners' Ass'n v. R.E. Roark Companies, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1993
- Gentry v. Credit Plan Corporation of HoustonTexas Supreme Court · 1975
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.