Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Ex parte Thorn

Alabama Supreme Court
788 So. 2d 140 (2000)


Facts

Raymond Bethel (plaintiff) sued Diesel “Repower,” Inc. (Diesel) (defendant) and its president Rex Thorn (defendant), alleging breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent suppression, and negligence arising out of two contracts for the purchase of a marine engine and transmission and three generators from Diesel. Thorn and Diesel moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The trial court granted Thorn’s motion but denied Diesel’s motion. Bethel appealed the grant of Thorn’s motion, and the Alabama Supreme Court held that Bethel had properly stated claims against Thorn. Bethel then filed an amended complaint seeking to add Thorn’s wife (defendant) and Thorn’s Diesel Service, Inc. (Service) (defendant), alleging that Diesel and its successor Service were alter egos of the Thorns. Bethel sought to pierce the corporate veil and requested a jury trial on all counts. The Thorns and Service moved to sever Bethel’s claims. The trial court denied the motion. The Thorns and Service petitioned the Alabama Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the corporate-veil-piercing claim was equitable and that Bethel therefore had no jury-trial right on the claim.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (See, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Johnston, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 178,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.