Walkovszky v. Carlton
New York Court of Appeals case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Walkovszky v. Carlton?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
Walkovszky v. Carlton, 223 N.E.2d 6 (N.Y. 1966),[1] is a United States corporate law decision on the conditions under which Courts may pierce the corporate veil. A cab company had shielded itself from liability by incorporating each cab as its own corporation. The New York Court of Appeals refused to pierce the veil on account of undercapitalization alone.
Quick Facts Walkovszky v. Carlton, Court ...
Walkovszky v. Carlton | |
---|---|
Court | New York Court of Appeals |
Full case name | John Walkovszky, Respondent, v. William Carlton, Appellant, et al., Defendants |
Decided | November 29, 1966 |
Citation(s) | 18 N.Y.2d 414, 223 N.E.2d 6, 276 N.Y.S.2d 585 (1966) |
Case history | |
Prior action(s) | 262 N.Y.2d 334 |
Subsequent action(s) | 287 N.Y.2d 546; 244 N.E.2d 55 |
Court membership | |
Judge(s) sitting | Stanley Fuld Kenneth Keating |
Case opinions | |
Fuld: Reversed lower court. |
Close