Walkovszky v. Carlton
Court of Appeals of New York
223 N.E.2d 6 (1966)
Carlton (defendant) owned 10 corporations (defendants), including, notably, Seon Cab Corporation. Each of the corporations owned one or two cabs, and the minimum amount of automobile insurance required by law. One of the cabs owned by Seon Cab was in an accident with Walkovszky (plaintiff). Walkovszky sued the cab’s driver, as well as Seon Cab (under a respondeat superior theory), Carlton (under a piercing the corporate veil theory), and all of Carlton’s other cab companies. In the lower court proceeding, Walkovszky claimed that the cab companies did not act as separate organizations, but were set up separately to avoid liability. The lower courts found that Carlton’s companies were set up to frustrate creditors, and that a creditor could sue Carlton. Carlton and his companies appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Fuld, J.)
Dissent (Keating, J.)
What to do next…
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.
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 159,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,700 briefs, keyed to 186 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.