to Ballinger before or during the spring of 1995. We construe Hambleton Brothers’s argument to be that these documents are evidence of Ballinger “milking” of “excessive dividends” from Balkin. Even when this evidence is viewed in the best light for Hambleton Brothers, as we must view it in this summary judgment context, the Bal-kin accounting documents, alone and with nothing more, are an insufficient basis upon which to pierce the corporate veil, because the quantity and character of the entries are not sufficient to meet a traditional definition of “milking” of a corporation. Moreover, these alleged 1995 distributions did not cause Balkin’s default on the timber contract with Hambleton Brothers; Abraczinskas’s fraudulent scheme of land transfers did. See Amfac, 654 P.2d at 1103 (<HOLDING>). The documents pre-date Abraczinskas’s
holding that there must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury alleged in the underlying complaint holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury holding that the plaintiff cannot establish pretext because she is unable to show any causal connection holding that a plaintiff must demonstrate a direct causal link between the municipal action and the deprivation of federal rights holding that failure to demonstrate a causal connection is fatal to a  1983  cause of action