18 Cited authorities

  1. Santisas v. Goodin

    17 Cal.4th 599 (Cal. 1998)   Cited 1,023 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that attorney's fees can be awarded only if provided by contract or authorized by statute
  2. Leek v. Cooper

    194 Cal.App.4th 399 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 175 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding "allegation that a person owns all of the corporate stock and makes all of the management decisions is insufficient to cause the court to disregard the corporate entity"
  3. Wyatt v. Union Mortgage Co.

    24 Cal.3d 773 (Cal. 1979)   Cited 401 times
    Holding that where the "gravamen of respondents' cause of action is that the appellants committed actual and constructive fraud by conspiring to breach their fiduciary duties . . . Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision 4 states the applicable statute of limitations"
  4. Associated Vendors, Inc. v. Oakland Meat Co.

    210 Cal.App.2d 825 (Cal. Ct. App. 1962)   Cited 314 times
    Holding "it is not sufficient to merely show that a creditor will remain unsatisfied if the corporate veil is not pierced, and thus set up such an unhappy circumstance as proof of an 'inequitable result'"
  5. Mid-Century Ins. Co. v. Gardner

    9 Cal.App.4th 1205 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 132 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that inadequate capitalization or concentration of ownership and control should not be relied on too heavily
  6. Newman v. Emerson Radio Corp.

    48 Cal.3d 973 (Cal. 1989)   Cited 142 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the rule announced in " Foley is fully retroactive, applying to all cases not yet final as of January 30, 1989, the date the decision in Foley became final."
  7. Virtualmagic Asia, Inc. v. Fil-Cartoons, Inc.

    99 Cal.App.4th 228 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 85 times
    Listing "numerous factors" considered by California courts in determining whether to apply the alter ego doctrine
  8. Calvert v. Huckins

    875 F. Supp. 674 (E.D. Cal. 1995)   Cited 96 times
    Holding that "ownership interests" and "some interlocking directors and officers . . . . do not justify piercing the corporate veil"
  9. George v. Auto. Club of South. California

    201 Cal.App.4th 1112 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 47 times
    Applying rule, but finding no ambiguity
  10. Brack v. Omni Loan Co. Ltd.

    164 Cal.App.4th 1312 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding that application of a choice-of-law provision was in error when the selected state's law conflicted with a fundamental policy of California
  11. Section 22000 - Title of division

    Cal. Fin. Code § 22000   Cited 55 times   13 Legal Analyses

    This division is known and may be cited as the "California Financing Law." Ca. Fin. Code § 22000 Amended by Stats 2017 ch 475 (AB 1284),s 4, eff. 10/4/2017. Division heading amended by Stats 2017 ch 475 (AB 1284),s 3, eff. 10/4/2017.