From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rittenhouse v. DeKalb County

U.S.
Feb 24, 1986
475 U.S. 1014 (1986)

Summary

listing factors relevant to alter ego determination

Summary of this case from Kuehne & Nagel (AG & Co.) v. Geosource, Inc.

Opinion

No. 85-1013.

February 24, 1986, October TERM, 1985.


C.A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 764 F. 2d 1451.


Summaries of

Rittenhouse v. DeKalb County

U.S.
Feb 24, 1986
475 U.S. 1014 (1986)

listing factors relevant to alter ego determination

Summary of this case from Kuehne & Nagel (AG & Co.) v. Geosource, Inc.

setting forth ten factors to establish the alter ego standard

Summary of this case from Etienne v. Wartsila N. Am.

stating that the decision of Veterans Affairs to stop furnishing funds to pay petitioner's salary "involved the essence of agency management discretion"

Summary of this case from First Enterprise v. U.S.

providing factors courts should consider in determining whether to impose consecutive sentences

Summary of this case from State v. Hazel

delineating the factors to be considered in making the concurrent-consecutive decision

Summary of this case from State v. Boyd

discussing how to decide whether sentences should run concurrently or consecutively

Summary of this case from State v. Brown

stating "the Code's paramount sentencing goals [are] that punishment fit the crime, not the criminal, and that there be a predictable degree of uniformity in sentencing"

Summary of this case from State v. Natale
Case details for

Rittenhouse v. DeKalb County

Case Details

Full title:RITTENHOUSE v. DeKALB COUNTY, GEORGIA, ET AL

Court:U.S.

Date published: Feb 24, 1986

Citations

475 U.S. 1014 (1986)

Citing Cases

Callahan v. Lancaster-Lebanon Unit 13

Applying these principles to the situation before us, there is no dispute that plaintiffs have a protected…

U.S. v. Schlette

2. Disclosure to Third Parties Rule 32(c)(3)(A) does not address release of the report to third parties.…