Harshaw v. Bethany Christian Services
District Court, W.D. Michigan
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION and ORDER
“Harshaw 5”
PAUL L. MALONEY, Chief Judge.
Granting Defendants’ Motion to Declare that Virginia Substantive Law Governs these Claims; Directing the Parties to Brief the Corporate Alter Ego Issue under Virginia Law; Scheduling Oral Argument on the Corporate Alter Ego Issue
This is a diversity tort case. Plaintiffs William and Julie Harshaw (“Harshaw”), a married couple proceeding individually and as guardians of their son Roman, are Virginia citizens; both defendants — Bethany Christian Services and Bethany Christian Services International, Inc. (together “BCS”) are Michigan…
2Cases cited65 opinions
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Commissioner v. Estate of BoschSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- West v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Placek v. City of Sterling HeightsMichigan Supreme Court · 1979
- Fidelity Union Trust Co. v. FieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
60 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Harshaw v. Bethany Christian ServicesDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 2010
- Jessica Guarnaschelli v. Medpace, Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2026
- William v. BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICESDistrict Court, W.D. Michigan · 2010