Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffdefendantlitigationstatutemotioncorporationmotion to dismiss
lawsuitplaintifflitigationstatutemotioncorporationmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Andes v. Versant Corp., 788 F.2d 1033, 5 Fed.R.Serv.3d 946
View Case »
Drudge v. Overland Plazas Co., 531 F.Supp. 210
View Case »
Hubei Gezhouba Sanlian Industrial Co, Ltd. v. Robinson Helicopter Company, Inc., Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2007 WL 9757804
View Case »
Lake v. Richardson-Merrell, Inc., 538 F.Supp. 262
View Case »
Gianni v. Fort Wayne Air Service, Inc., 342 F.2d 621
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Stone v. Gibson Refrigerator Sales Corp., 366 F.Supp. 733

Facts

Plaintiffs brought an action against Gibson Refrigerator and Gibson Products Corporation for personal injuries from a fire on October 26, 1969, allegedly caused by an air conditioner manufactured by Gibson Refrigerator. Gibson Refrigerator joined General Cable Corporation as a third-party defendant, claiming it negligently manufactured the wiring. Later, it was discovered that the wiring was actually made by Electric Parts Corporation, which was joined as a third-party defendant. However, Electric Parts had been formally dissolved on June 11, 1969, four months before the fire, leading to the motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs brought an action against Gibson Refrigerator and Gibson Products Corporation for personal injuries from a fire on October 26, 1969, allegedly caused by an air conditioner manufactured by Gibson Refrigerator.

Issue

Whether Electric Parts Corporation, having been formally dissolved prior to the occurrence of the fire, can be sued in this action.

Whether Electric Parts Corporation, having been formally dissolved prior to the occurrence of the fire, can be sued in this action.

Rule

The capacity to sue or be sued in a Federal court for a corporation is determined by the law of the state under which it was organized, and in Illinois, a dissolved corporation cannot be sued unless a statute provides otherwise.

The capacity to sue or be sued in a Federal court for a corporation is determined by the law of the state under which it was organized, and in Illinois, a dissolved corporation cannot be sued unless a statute provides otherwise.

Analysis

The court analyzed the relevant Illinois law regarding the dissolution of corporations and found that there was no statute allowing for a lawsuit against a corporation that had been formally dissolved prior to the cause of action. Since Electric Parts was dissolved four months before the fire and three and a half years before being joined in the suit, the court concluded that it lacked the legal capacity to be sued.

The court analyzed the relevant Illinois law regarding the dissolution of corporations and found that there was no statute allowing for a lawsuit against a corporation that had been formally dissolved prior to the cause of action.

Conclusion

The court granted Electric Parts Corporation's motion to dismiss the action, concluding that the dissolution of the corporation terminated its existence for all purposes, including litigation.

The court granted Electric Parts Corporation's motion to dismiss the action, concluding that the dissolution of the corporation terminated its existence for all purposes, including litigation.

Who won?

Electric Parts Corporation prevailed in the case because the court found that it had been formally dissolved prior to the fire and thus could not be sued.

Electric Parts Corporation prevailed in the case because the court found that it had been formally dissolved prior to the fire and thus could not be sued.

You must be