38 Cited authorities

United States v. Bestfoods
524 U.S. 51 (1998) Cited 1,414 times 22 Legal Analyses
Holding that ownership and control is insufficient to demonstrate an alter-ego relationship
Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp.
467 U.S. 752 (1984) Cited 1,434 times 29 Legal Analyses
Holding that a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary have a "complete unity of interest" because "their objectives are common" and "their general corporate actions are guided or determined not by two separate corporate consciousness, but one"
Morris v. Dept. of Taxation
82 N.Y.2d 135 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 1,417 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that "piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that: the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff's injury."
Godoy v. Abamaster of Miami
302 A.D.2d 57 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003) Cited 211 times
Holding that seller could obtain indemnification from distributor that was higher in the distribution chain because the distributor was “closest to the manufacturer” and was in a better position to “exert pressure” on the manufacturer
Burkert v. Petrol Plus of Naugatuck, Inc.
216 Conn. 65 (Conn. 1990) Cited 288 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding no liability because General Motors was not involved in the sale of defective automatic transmission fluid
Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Beech
751 F.2d 117 (2d Cir. 1984) Cited 298 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding sufficient allegations of fact under each of the four factors to demonstrate that the American subsidiary was a mere department of its foreign corporation
Balintulo v. Ford Motor Co.
796 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2015) Cited 111 times
Holding amendments are futile "when [they] could not withstand a motion to dismiss"
Hymowitz v. Lilly Co.
73 N.Y.2d 487 (N.Y. 1989) Cited 206 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that relaxation of the traditional product identification requirement in tort law to provide a forum to innocent victims of the drug DES was not a "clearly excessive" burden "in relation to the putative local benefits" and, hence, was not violative of the Commerce Clause
Caprara v. Chrysler Corp.
52 N.Y.2d 114 (N.Y. 1981) Cited 255 times
Finding that a manufacturing defect in a product is one which results from a mistake or error made during the manufacturing process
Martin v. Hacker
83 N.Y.2d 1 (N.Y. 1993) Cited 172 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding that a warning is adequate when "read as a whole, the warning conveys a meaning as to the consequences that is unmistakable."

Mary Finerty, Individually and as the Executor of the Estate of Ramond Finerty, Respondents,v.Abex Corporation, Formerly Known as American Brake Shoe Company, et al., Defendants, Ford Motor Company, Appellant. (And Another Action.)

38 Cited authorities

Holding that ownership and control is insufficient to demonstrate an alter-ego relationship

Holding that a parent and a wholly owned subsidiary have a "complete unity of interest" because "their objectives are common" and "their general corporate actions are guided or determined not by two separate corporate consciousness, but one"

Holding that "piercing the corporate veil requires a showing that: the owners exercised complete domination of the corporation in respect to the transaction attacked; and that such domination was used to commit a fraud or wrong against the plaintiff which resulted in plaintiff's injury."

Holding that seller could obtain indemnification from distributor that was higher in the distribution chain because the distributor was “closest to the manufacturer” and was in a better position to “exert pressure” on the manufacturer

Finding no liability because General Motors was not involved in the sale of defective automatic transmission fluid

Finding sufficient allegations of fact under each of the four factors to demonstrate that the American subsidiary was a mere department of its foreign corporation

Holding amendments are futile "when [they] could not withstand a motion to dismiss"

Holding that relaxation of the traditional product identification requirement in tort law to provide a forum to innocent victims of the drug DES was not a "clearly excessive" burden "in relation to the putative local benefits" and, hence, was not violative of the Commerce Clause

Finding that a manufacturing defect in a product is one which results from a mistake or error made during the manufacturing process

Finding that a warning is adequate when "read as a whole, the warning conveys a meaning as to the consequences that is unmistakable."