Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Dietel v. Day, 492 P.2d 455.

60 citing documents.

Fleming v. Fripps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
Fleming v. Fripps Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
(discussing alter ego and corporate veil-piercing); A.R.
Stratton v. Burton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Stratton v. Burton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Sanford v. Dna Investments Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Sanford v. Dna Investments Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
Unted v. Gammage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Unted v. Gammage Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
Keg Restaurants Arizona, Inc. v. Jones 375 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Keg Restaurants Arizona, Inc. v. Jones 375 P.3d 1173 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Estrada v. Figari Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Estrada v. Figari Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Courts will pierce the corporate veil only in limited circumstances “when the corporation is the alter ego or business conduit of a person, and when to observe the corporation would work an injustice.” Honeywell, Inc. v. Arnold Constr.
DBT Yuma, L.L.C. v. Yuma County Airport Authority 340 P.3d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
DBT Yuma, L.L.C. v. Yuma County Airport Authority 340 P.3d 1080 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
(noting “a legitimate purpose of incorporation is to avoid personal liability and if the corporate fiction is too easily ignored and personal liability imposed, then incorporation is discouraged”).
TP Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Simms 307 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
TP Racing, L.L.L.P. v. Simms 307 P.3d 56 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
(“As a general rule, a corporation will be treated as a legal entity until sufficient reason appears to disregard the corporate form.”).
Loiselle v. COSAS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC 228 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
Loiselle v. COSAS MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC 228 P.3d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
A corporate entity will be disregarded, and the corporate veil pierced, only if there is sufficient evidence that 1) the corporation is the “alter ego or business conduit of a person,” , and 2) disregarding the corporation’s separate legal status is “necessary to prevent injustice or fraud.”
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc. 161 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
Arizona Department of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc. 161 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
A corporation’s status as a legal entity separate from its owners and directors is presumed, and we will disregard the separate legal status of a corporation, and "pierce the corporate veil," only if there is sufficient evidence that 1) the corporation is the "alter ego or business conduit of a person,” , and 2) disregarding the corporation’s separate legal status is “necessary to prevent injustice or fraud.” Angelo, 166 Ariz. at 27 , 800 P.2d at 14 .
Taeger v. CATHOLIC FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVS. 995 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Taeger v. CATHOLIC FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVS. 995 P.2d 721 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Deutsche Credit Corp. v. Case Power & Equipment Co. 876 P.2d 1190 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Insurance 821 P.2d 725 Ariz. 1991
Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Insurance 821 P.2d 725 Ariz. 1991
State v. Angelo 800 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Angelo 800 P.2d 11 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Standage v. Standage 711 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
Standage v. Standage 711 P.2d 612 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
A basic axiom of corporate law is that a corporation will be treated as a separate entity unless sufficient reason appears to disregard the corporate form e.g., *476
Bischofshausen, Vasbinder, & Luckie v. D.W. Jaquays Mining & Equipment Contractors Co. 700 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
BISCHOFSHAUSEN, ETC. v. DW Jaquays Min. 700 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
BISCHOFSHAUSEN, ETC. v. DW Jaquays Min. 700 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Bischofshausen, Vasbinder, & Luckie v. D.W. Jaquays Mining & Equipment Contractors Co. 700 P.2d 902 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
Mobile Discount Corp. v. Schumacher 676 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Mobile Discount Corp. v. Schumacher 676 P.2d 649 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
Stoltz v. Maloney 630 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Stoltz v. Maloney 630 P.2d 560 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
Chapman v. Field 602 P.2d 481 Ariz. 1979
Chapman v. Field 602 P.2d 481 Ariz. 1979
PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL It has been stated that the law regarding the piercing of the corporate veil is “more easily stated than applied.”
Malisewski v. Singer 598 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Malisewski v. Singer 598 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Barrasso v. First National Bank 595 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
Barrasso v. First National Bank 595 P.2d 1014 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
We view the facts in the light most favorable to the *471 party opposing the summary judgment, , and which best supports the judgment against Mrs. Feldman
Ize Nantan Bagowa, Ltd. v. Scalia 577 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Ize Nantan Bagowa, Ltd. v. Scalia 577 P.2d 725 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
Youngren v. Rezzonico 543 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
Youngren v. Rezzonico 543 P.2d 142 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1975
further provides that: “The corporate fiction will be disregarded when the corporation is the alter ego or business conduit of a person, and when to observe the corporation would work an injustice.
Ornamental and Structural Steel, Inc. v. BBG, INC. 509 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
Ornamental and Structural Steel, Inc. v. BBG, INC. 509 P.2d 1053 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973