Legal Opinion

Doe v. Gelineau

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Decided June 11, 1999No. 97-611-Appeal to 97-614-Appeal, 98-7-Appeal and 98-8-AppealPublishedCited by 57 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FLANDERS, Justice.

When it comes to piercing corporate veils, courts are loath to act like Vlad the Impaler. 1 Indeed, the stakes are too high for courts regularly to disregard the separate legal status of corporations. Because a corporation is an incorporeal, “artificial creature” of the law, Cook v. American Tubing & Webbing Co., 28 R.I. 41, 49, 65 A. 641, 644 (1905), it constitutes “an artificial person distinct and separate from its individual and often changing stockholders.” Vennerbeck & Clase Co. v. Juergens Jewelry Co., 53 R.I. 135, 138, 164 A. 509, 510 (1933). 2 Thus, courts…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Palmisciano v. Burrillville Racing Ass'nSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1992
  2. Hydro-Manufacturing, Inc. v. Kayser-Roth Corp.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1994
  3. Superior Boiler Works, Inc. v. R.J. Sanders, Inc.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1998
  4. R & B Elec. Co., Inc. v. Amco Const. Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1984
  5. Alterio v. Biltmore Construction Corp.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 1977

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

3Cited by57 opinions

  1. Krystkowiak v. W.O. Brisben Companies, Inc.Supreme Court of Colorado · 2004
  2. Roe v. GelineauSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2002
  3. Mills v. State Sales, Inc.Supreme Court of Rhode Island · 2003
  4. Heflin v. KoszelaSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 2001
  5. Klunder v. Brown UniversityCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 2015

52 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