Court Opinion

ID: 9685704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:57:42.422656+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:09.624042
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring).
In concurring with this opinion, which reverses a summary judgment involving individual liability vis-a-vis corporate liability, I refer to my dissent in Baatz v. Arrow Bar, 452 N.W.2d 138 (S.D.1990), wherein this Court affirmed summary judgment, holding for a corporate body as distinguished from individual liability. Piercing these corporate veils are difficult and Baatz set forth six criteria to do so. Baatz involved a tort action, whereas this action sounds in contract. Here, the corporate entity must have, we hold, disclosed its corporate capacity. In Baatz?
“This even-handed Justice,
Commends the ingredients of our poison’d chalice
To our own lips.”
Shakespeare:
Macbeth I. vii.
I concede that the facts, in these two cases, are quite dissimilar. However, in both cases an intent existed to hide behind a corporate veil.