 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Parker v. Henry A. Petter Supply Co.4/1/2005
er or director of Mine and Mill Supply or of IRECO. He testified by deposition that Mine Equipment & Mill Supply proceeded with completely different management than Mine and Mill Supply had. The owner of Mine and Mill Supply retired. Furthermore, IRECO and Mine Equipment & Mill Supply continue as separate businesses today. Mr. Childs also testified to the ways in which the business conducted by Mine Equipment & Mill Supply differed from its predecessor, Mine and Mill Supply.
Therefore, we cannot agree with Parker that under the factors which determine continuation, Mine Equipment & Mill Supply merely continues the businesses that went before it. We agree that appellant has not presented any facts which convince us that Mine Equipment & Mill Supply is a continuation of either Mine and Mill Supply or IRECO. Thus, we affirm the trial court's conclusion that Mine Equipment & Mill Supply could be dismissed because it was incorporated after Parker's employment and had no liability for its selling corporation's debts.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the orders of the Marshall Circuit Court as it relates to Mine Equipment & Mill Supply and vacate the summary judgment granted in favor of Petter Supply and Hannan Supply and remand for further proceedings.
ALL CONCUR.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|