65 L.Ed.2d 66 (1980). “If such ‘factors of profitability’ arising ‘from the operation of the business as a whole’ exist and evidence the operation of a unitary business, a state can gain a justification for its tax consideration of value that has no other connection with that state.” Woolworth, 458 U.S. at 364, 102 S.Ct. at 3135. The Court has not limited its analysis of unitary business to these three factors. As another indication of prime importance, the Court has identified the degree to which goods flow between a subsidiary and the parent or between various branches of a single corporation. Obviously, the greater the flow of raw materials or products between entities involved, the greater is the likelihood that corporate unity exists. See Exxon, 447 U.S. at 225, 100 S.Ct. at 2121 (<HOLDING>). In contrast, the likelihood of the existence
recognizing that limited liability does not protect corporate officers who may be liable as joint tortfeasors for acts committed in the regular course of the corporations business holding that a corporations principal place of business for determining diversity jurisdiction under 28 usc  1332c1 is the nerve center meaning the corporations headquarters or the place where a corporations officers direct control and coordinate the corporations activities holding that corporate unity exists when exxons state petroleum business was dependent upon the general corporations assured supply of raw materials and crude holding that the general corporate laws are incorporated into the corporate charter holding that corporate law should apply because key question was legal effect of contracts between corporations