Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

 The burden of proof is on the party seeking to disregard the corporate form. See National Soffit & Escutcheons, Inc. v. Superior Sys., Inc., 98 F.3d 262, 265 (7th Cir. 1996); Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Roman Ceramics Corp., 603 F.2d 1065, 1069 (3d Cir. 1979) ('The burden of proof on this issue rests with the party attempting to negate the existence of a separate entity.'). 

The federal standard 'for when it is proper to pierce the corporate veil is notably imprecise and fact-intensive.' Crane v. Green & Freedman Baking Co., 134 F.3d 17, 21 (1st Cir. 1998); see also Note, supra, 95 Harv. L. Rev. at 852 (noting that federal common law on veil piercing is amorphous and must be flexibly applied). Federal courts are not bound by 'the strict standards of the common law alter ego doctrine which would apply in a tort or contract action.' Capital Tel. Co. v. FCC, 162 U.S. App. D.C. 192, 498 F.2d 734, 738 (D.C. Cir. 1974). Nor is there any 'litmus test in the federal courts governing when to disregard corporate form.' Alman v. Danin, 801 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1986). Instead, ...

Register or login to access full content