Dombroski v. WellPoint, Inc.

Ohio Supreme Court

Dombroski v. WellPoint, Inc.

879 N.E.2d 781, 116 Ohio St. 3d 1472

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 23, 2008

Docket2007-2162

StatusPublished

This text of 879 N.E.2d 781 (Dombroski v. WellPoint, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dombroski v. WellPoint, Inc., 879 N.E.2d 781, 116 Ohio St. 3d 1472 (Ohio 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Belmont App. No. 06 BE 60, 2007-Ohio-5054. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at page 4 of the court of appeals’ Journal Entry filed November 13, 2007:

“Does the second prong of Belvedere [Belvedere Condominium Unit Oumers’ Assn. v. R.E. Roark Cos., Inc. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 274], which states that the corporate veil can be pierced when control of the corporation was exercised in such a manner as to commit fraud or an illegal act against the person seeking to disregard the corporate entity, also allow the corporate veil to be pierced in cases where control was exercised to commit unjust or inequitable acts that do not rise to the level of fraud or an illegal act?”

Pfeifer, J., dissents.

The conflict eases are Collum v. Perlman (Apr. 30, 1999), Lucas App. No. L-98-1292, and Widlar v. Young, Lucas App. No. L-05-1184, 2006-Ohio-868.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Belmont App. No. 06 BE 60, 2007-Ohio-5054. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at page 4 of the court of appeals’ Journal Entry filed November 13, 2007:

“Does the second prong of Belvedere [Belvedere Condominium Unit Oumers’ Assn. v. R.E. Roark Cos., Inc. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 274], which states that the corporate veil can be pierced when control of the corporation was exercised in such a manner as to commit fraud or an illegal act against the person seeking to disregard the corporate entity, also allow the corporate veil to be pierced in cases where control was exercised to commit unjust or inequitable acts that do not rise to the level of fraud or an illegal act?”

Pfeifer, J., dissents.

The conflict eases are Collum v. Perlman (Apr. 30, 1999), Lucas App. No. L-98-1292, and Widlar v. Young, Lucas App. No. L-05-1184, 2006-Ohio-868.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

879 N.E.2d 781, 116 Ohio St. 3d 1472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dombroski-v-wellpoint-inc-ohio-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack