Task: Text Completion
Input (English): v. Pingue, No. 96APE11-1598, 1997 WL 578952 (Ohio App. 10 Dist. Sept. 16, 1997) (same); Wiencek v. Atcole Co., Inc., 109 Ohio App.3d 240, 671 N.E.2d 1339, 1342 (Ohio App. 3 Dist.1996). (“Based upon a reading of Belvedere, the purpose of the theory ‘piercing the corporate veil,’ and Ohio case law prior to and subsequent to Belvedere, we hold that one seeking to disregard the corporate entity may present evidence that the shareholder exercised his control over the corporation in such a manner as to commit a fraud, illegal, or other unjust or inequitable act upon the person seeking to disregard the corporate entity in order to satisfy the second prong of the test enunciated in Belve-dere.”). Contra Collum v. Perlman, No. L-98-1291, 1999 WL 252725, at *3 (Ohio App. 6 Dist.Apr. 30, 1999). (<HOLDING>). We note that, although many of these cases 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an appellate court cannot consider an issue that was not preserved for appellate review (B) holding that expansion of belvedere test by other appellate districts was an incorrect interpretation (C) holding that a denial of coverage based on a reasonable interpretation of the policy is not bad faith even if incorrect (D) recognizing that municipal corporations can include under the missouri constitution in addition to cities and towns counties school districts townships under township organization special road districts and drainage districts (E) holding that service was not defeated by an address with an incorrect zip code
Output (English): (B)