KINNEY SHOE CORP. v. POLAN Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A court held a sole shareholder personally liable for his corporation’s debt because he failed to capitalize the company or observe any corporate formalities, rendering it a mere shell that offered no liability protection.
Legal Significance: This case limits the “assumption of risk” defense in piercing the corporate veil actions, holding that a creditor does not assume the risk of default when a corporation is a complete sham with zero capitalization.
KINNEY SHOE CORP. v. POLAN Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Defendant Lincoln Polan formed Industrial Realty Company (“Industrial”) as its sole shareholder. Industrial was created to sublease a building from Plaintiff Kinney Shoe Corp. (“Kinney”). Polan observed no corporate formalities for Industrial: no organizational meetings were held, no officers were elected, no stock was issued, and no capital was ever paid into the corporation. Industrial’s only asset was the sublease from Kinney, and its only income was rent from a second sublease to another of Polan’s companies, Polan Industries, Inc. Industrial had no bank account, and the first and only rent payment to Kinney was made from Polan’s personal funds. After Industrial defaulted, Kinney obtained a judgment against it but could not collect because Industrial was insolvent. Kinney then filed this action to pierce the corporate veil and hold Polan personally liable for the judgment.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: May a court pierce the corporate veil and hold a sole shareholder personally liable for a corporation’s contractual obligations when the shareholder completely failed to capitalize the corporation or observe any corporate formalities?
Yes. Polan is personally liable for Industrial’s debt. The court reversed the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nu
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
May a court pierce the corporate veil and hold a sole shareholder personally liable for a corporation’s contractual obligations when the shareholder completely failed to capitalize the corporation or observe any corporate formalities?
Conclusion
This case serves as a strong precedent that the privilege of limited Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolo
Legal Rule
Under West Virginia law, a court may pierce the corporate veil when: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia des
Legal Analysis
The court applied the two-prong test from *Laya v. Erin Homes, Inc.* Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pari
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A court will pierce the corporate veil where a shareholder disregards