Marshall v. Baggett

616 F.3d 849 | Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit | 2010

voidedCited 195 timesFLAGSHIPTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

A corporate officer cannot be held individually liable on a contract signed in her official capacity on behalf of the corporation absent allegations of corporate veil piercing or fraud, and the complaint's failure to allege such facts renders the default judgment legally insufficient.

She cannot be held individually liable for the allegedly delinquent payments of the corporation.

Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 2010

Related Cases

Luis E. Garcia, M.D. v. Copenhaver, Bell & Associates, m.d.'s, P.A., Defendant-Third Party St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Third Party

1997remanded

Whether a defendant qualifies as an 'employer' under ADEA is a substantive element of the plaintiff's claim, not merely a jurisdictional question, and must be decided by a jury rather than dismissed by the judge under Rule 12(b)(1).

Intergen N v. v. Grina

2003enforced

A party cannot be compelled to arbitrate disputes unless it has agreed to do so; InterGen, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreements, is not bound by arbitration clauses in contracts signed by other parties.

Travis County v. Pelzel & Associates, Inc.

2002voided

Local Government Code § 89.004's presentment requirement is a condition precedent to suit, not a waiver of sovereign immunity, and a county does not waive immunity by withholding contract payments under liquidated damages clauses.

Hamon Contractors, Inc. v. Carter & Burgess, Inc.

2009enforced

The economic loss rule bars post-contractual fraud claims when the alleged fraud arises from duties implicated by a party's performance of contractual terms, even where the fraud is intentional.

Robert Lilley, Cross-Appellee v. Btm Corporation, Cross-Appellant

1992affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part

Lilley was properly determined to be an employee under the ADEA and Elliott-Larsen Act, and the court affirmed his retaliatory discharge claim but reversed the denial of prejudgment interest and remanded for recomputation of costs.

County Commissioners v. J. Roland Dashiell & Sons, Inc.

2000enforced

An express written contract bars quasi-contractual claims for unjust enrichment when the contract addresses the subject matter of the claim.