LEON COLEMAN, APPELLANT,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Citator

Cited By

• Vantage View, Inc. v. Bali E. Dev. Corp., 421 So. 2d 728 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
  …2d at 190. No mention was made of thé failure to prove any other element. . Accord Futch v. Southern Stores, Inc., 380 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Wilson, 210 So. 2d 761 (Fla.3d DCA 1968); Sirmons v. Arnold Lumber Co., 167 So. 2d 588 (Fla.2d DCA 1964). . Roberts’ Fish Farm v. Spencer, 153 So. 2d 718 (Fla.1963). This court said in Computer Center, Inc. v. Vedapco, Inc., 320 So. 2d 404, 406 (Fla.4th DCA 1975), cert. denied, 333 So. 2d 465 (Fla.1976): Courts are reluctant to disr…
• Computer Ctr., Inc. v. Vedapco, Inc., 320 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
  …be pierced when it is shown that the corporation is a mere device or sham used to mislead creditors or for fraudulent purposes. Aztec Motel, Inc. v. State ex rel. Faircloth, Fla. 1971, 251 So. 2d 849; Sirmons v. Arnold Lumber Company, Fla.App.1964, 167 So. 2d 588; House of Koscot Dev. Corp. v. American Line Cosmetics, Inc., 468 F. 2d 64 (5th Cir. 1972). Upon analyzing appellee’s contentions, we note first that item (f) was not proven. Next, Mrs. Mills’s contribution of over three million dollars to the corpo…
• House OF Koscot Dev. Corp. v. Am. Line Cosmetics, Inc., 468 F.2d 64 (5th Cir. 1972)
  …held liable under the conduit or instrumentality theory, we do not need to decide whether the evidence was also sufficient to establish that American Line Cosmetics was operated as a fraud upon its creditors. See e. g., Sirmons v. Arnold Lumber Co., 167 So. 2d 588 (Fla.App.1964); Advertects, Inc. v. Sawyer Industries, supra; Riley v. Fatt, 47 So. 769 (Fla. 1950). . Although some commentators have distinguished between the “agency” and “instrumentality” or “identity” rationales, the theories are interchangeab…

Authorities Cited

• Sandsbury LEE v. State, 165 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)