is a doctrine that says if a shareholder dominates a corporation and uses it for improper purposes, a court can disregard the corporate entity and hold the shareholder personally liable for the corporation's debts and obligations.

Piercing the corporate veil

Explanation:

This are the options that come with this question:

This is an example of the doctrine of "piercing the corporate veil." This describes a situation in which the shareholders of a corporation can be held personally liable for the debts and liabilities of a corporation, according to a court. This is in contrast to common practice in corporations, which assumes that, if a corporation is sued, the shareholders cannot be brought into the lawsuit. "Piercing the corporate veil" usually occurs in the case of fraud, or in the case of egregious and willful activity that put corporate gain over the public good.

elizabeth loftus conducted a study to observe the reliability of eyewitnesses during the 1970s. their baseline was to define how accurate are the recollections of eyewitnesses.

her studies do not support the use of eyewitness. loftus mentions in her work that we are not required to recall some experiences, meaning that rarely an individual eyewitness testimony is trustworthy. a good example is presented in her work, where all individuals watched a video and were than asked "about how fast were the cars going when they hit/smash? ". the testimonies changed based on the word she used to make the question (hit or smash), proving the fragility.

no the answer is c only objects touching the earth's surface can be acted upon by an outside force