Washington's Doctrine of Corporate Disregard
Harris, Thomas V.
Citation analytics
How this journal article sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this journal article
Most recently cited by9
- 2014Landstar Inway, Inc. v. Samrow Wash. Ct. App.
- 2011Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Freeman Holdings of Washington, LLC E.D. Wash.
- 1999Rogerson Hiller Corp. v. Port of Port Angeles Wash. Ct. App.
- 1991Norhawk Investments, Inc. v. Subway Sandwich Shops, Inc. Wash. Ct. App.
- 1988Western Washington Laborers-Employers Health & Security Trust Fund v. Harold Jordan Co. Wash. Ct. App.
- 1983Lindsay Credit Corp. v. Skarperud Wash. Ct. App.
- 1982Meisel v. M & N Modern Hydraulic Press Co. Wash.
- 1982Schwarzmann v. Ass'n of Apartment Owners Wash. Ct. App.
- 1981Roderick Timber Co. v. Willapa Harbor Cedar Products, Inc. Wash. Ct. App.
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Abstract
Corporations are ordinarily recognized as legal entities separate and distinct both from their own shareholders, officers, and directors, and from other corporations. There are, however, situations in which the Washington courts will not recognize this separateness. In such cases, the shareholders, officers, directors, or even wholly separate corporations, are held responsible for the corporation's activities. When they have refused to recognize the corporation as a separate legal entity, Washington's courts have employed the "doctrine of disregard." The consequences of the doctrine are not borne by the corporation.
Frequently, its underlying liability has already been established. In other cases, the corporation's own responsibility is not an issue. In all cases, the doctrine's remedial power is directed against the shareholders, officers, directors, or other corporations that are "alter egos" of the corporation.