Legal Opinion

Foodland Distributors v. Al-Naimi

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided February 25, 1997No. Docket 178201PublishedCited by 63 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGribbs, J.

We concur in that part of Judge O’Connell’s opinion finding a fraudulent conveyance as discussed in part A of § vm of his opinion. However, the overwhelming evidence establishes fraud and an ample basis to pierce the corporate veil and permit plaintiff to recover the $697,952 for unpaid grocery products.* 1

Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in not piercing the corporate veil of Metropolitan Grocery, Inc (New Metro), thereby permitting plaintiff to reach the assets of Amir Al-Naimi, Sandra Al-Naimi, and Atour Abro. We agree. In light of plaintiff’s evidence and the entire spectrum of…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Hi-Way Motor Co. v. International Harvester Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1976
  2. Wells v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1985
  3. Law Offices of Lawrence J Stockler, PC v. RoseMichigan Court of Appeals · 1989
  4. Herman v. Mobile Homes Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1947
  5. Kline v. KlineMichigan Court of Appeals · 1981

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by63 opinions

  1. Derderian v. Genesys Health Care SystemsMichigan Court of Appeals · 2004
  2. Servo Kinetics, Inc. v. Tokyo Precision Instruments Co. Ltd. Moog, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
  3. Helena Agri-Enterprises, LLC v. Great Lakes Grain, LLCCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2021
  4. Rymal v. BaergenMichigan Court of Appeals · 2004
  5. Green v. ZiegelmanMichigan Court of Appeals · 2015

58 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API