Legal Opinion
United States v. Dean Van Lines, Inc., and Dean International, Ltd.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided May 10, 1976No. 75--1109PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
DYER, Circuit Judge:
The district court, although recognizing that there was insufficient evidence to justify “piercing the corporate veil” held Dean, the parent corporation, liable for the acts of Condyne, its subsidiary, on a theory of unjust enrichment. We reverse.
From early 1965 to early 1967, the Belgian corporation of S.A. Condyne acted as freight forwarder for the Agency for International Development, United States Department of State (AID). Under the terms of its contract with AID, Condyne charged gross ocean freights. At the same time, unknown to AID, Condyne was receiving rebates…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Pierce v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
- Marr v. Postal Union Life Insurance Co.California Court of Appeal · 1940
- Bayne v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- ROBERTS'FISH FARM v. SpencerSupreme Court of Florida · 1963
- Pan Pacific Sash & Door Co. v. Greendale Park, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1958
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Brody v. BockSupreme Court of Colorado · 1995
- Youkelsone v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (In Re Washington Mutual, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · 2009
- Coastal States Trading, Inc. v. Zenith Navigation S. A.District Court, S.D. New York · 1977
- Hillsborough Holdings Corp. v. Celotex Corp. (In Re Hillsborough Holdings Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · 1990
- Johnson v. Warnaco, Inc.District Court, S.D. Mississippi · 1976
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.