Cases

578 F.3d 1252 (2009) SINALTRAINAL, Isidro Segundo Gil, The Estate of, Luis Eduardo Garcia, Alvaro Gonzalez Lopez, Jose Domingo Flores, Jorge Humberto Leal, Juan Carlos Galvis, Alvaro Gonzalez, John Doe, as representative of the Estate of Isidro Segundo Gil, Luis Adolfo Cardona, John Doe II, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COCA-COLA COMPANY, the, Coca-Cola De Colombia, S.A., Panamerican Beverages Company, LLC, Panamco, LLC, Panamco Industrail De Gaseosa

155 T.C. No. 10 UNITED STATES TAX COURT THE COCA-COLA COMPANY & SUBSIDIARIES, Petitioner v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent Docket No. 31183-15. Filed November 18, 2020. P, a U.S. corporation, was the legal owner of the intellectual property (IP) necessary to manufacture, distribute, and sell some of the best-known beverage brands in the world. This IP included trade- marks, product names, lo

OPINION ON REMAND WALTER E. HOFFMAN, Senior District Judge, Sitting by Designation. This case, having been decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, see 849 F.2d 511 (11th Cir.1988), on July 12, 1988, is now before the District Court following remand. By its judgment issued as a mandate on August 3, 1988, the judgment of the District Court was AFFIRMED

40 F.3d 669 147 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2897, 63 USLW 2343,129 Lab.Cas. P 11,231 NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner/Cross-Respondentv.GREENSBURG COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, INC.,Respondent/Cross-Petitioner Nos. 93-3564, 93-3604. United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. Argued June 6, 1994.Decided Nov. 23, 1994.

GEORGE C. PRATT, Circuit Judge: Defendants, the Coca Cola Bottling Company of New York (Coke-New York) and John Hurley, moved for summary judgment, contending that plaintiff Hill’s claim of racial discrimination in employment was collaterally estopped by prior judicially confirmed holdings of New York’s unemployment insurance tribunals that Hill had been terminated for misconduct. The United States District Court for the Easte

750 So.2d 83 (1999) COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY, et al., Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. Linda HAGAN and Dobie Hagan, et al., Appellees/Cross-Appellants. No. 98-1463. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. December 3, 1999. Rehearing Denied January 7, 2000. Raoul G. Cantero, III, Gregory A. Victor, and Jeffrey W. Blacher, of Adorno &

OPINION STEEL, District Judge: This is a patent infringement action of which the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338. Plaintiff, The Institutum Divi Thomae Foundation (hereinafter “Foundation”) is the owner, and plaintiff, Sperti Products, Inc., originally organized under the name of Sperti Foods, Inc., claims to be the exclusive licensee, of the three patents in suit. The def

399 F.2d 607 SPERTI PRODUCTS, INC.v.The COCA COLA COMPANY, Sperti Products, Inc. and the Institutum Divi Thomae Foundation, Appellants. No. 17025. United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. Argued May 10, 1968. Decided August 13, 1968. Albert E. Strasser, Melville, Strasser, Foster &

SCHOTT, Chief Judge. This case arose out of an accident on an elevator at the plant owned by defendant, Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Ltd. (Coke). William Fontana’s hand was crushed in the elevator door. He and his wife sued Coke and Otis Elevator Company for damages. After a jury trial, the court awarded a judgment to him against Coke in the amount of $200,000.00, reduced by his fault of 20%; dismissed his suit agai

FORD ELLIOTT, Judge: In this ease, we hold that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment to defendants based on the “spoliation of evidence” doctrine. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order granting summary judgment to appellee Cameron Coca-Cola Bottling Company, Inc. (“Cameron”) at No. 1372 Pittsburgh 1995. We also reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to appel-lee Owens-Brockway Glass Contai

995 F.Supp. 298 (1998) Richard PARISI, Plaintiff, v. THE COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Defendant. No. CV 97-1800(ADS). United States District Court, E.D. New York. February 10, 1998. *299 Edward Cherney, Woodbury, NY, for Plaintiff. Pirro, Collier, Cohen & Halpern, LLP., White Plains, NY (Phillip M. Halpern,

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TOM S. LEE, District Judge. This cause is before the court on motion by plaintiffs, Larry Ivy, Donnie Ruffin, Henry Naylor, Gus Blanks, Robert Sims, Robert Owens and Dorse Stribling, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Also before the court is defendant Meridian Coca-Col

455 N.E.2d 370 (1983) COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY-GOSHEN, Indiana, Appellant (Third-Party Plaintiff below), v. VENDO COMPANY AND TECUMSEH PRODUCTS COMPANY, Appellees (Third-Party Defendants below). No. 3-682A115. Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District. October 25, 1983. Rehearing Denied January 20, 1984. *372

MEMORANDUM ** Peter Hoffman and Cinevisions (referred to collectively as “Hoffman”) appeal the district court’s denial of Hoffman’s motion to remand, and its Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of the claims asserted against Ap-pellees Laurie May and Alan Salke. Salke cross-appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ.P.”) 11, and his motion to hav

MEMORANDUM ** Peter Hoffman and Cinevisions (referred to collectively as “Hoffman”) appeal the district court’s denial of Hoffman’s motion to remand, and its Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of the claims asserted against Ap-pellees Laurie May and Alan Salke. Salke cross-appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ.P.”) 11, and his motion to hav

WISE, Justice. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., d/b/a Victoryland (“MCGP”),1 appeals from *154the trial court’s orders denying its motions to compel arbitration in the actions filed against it by Marie Hoffman, Sandra R. Howard, and Dianne Slayton (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the plaintiffs”). Facts and Pr

FRIENDLY, Circuit Judge (dissenting) : Agreeing that this case is governed by the principles set out in Accardi v. Pennsylvania Railroad Co., 383 U.S. 225, 86 S.Ct. 768, 15 L.Ed.2d 717 (1966), I dissent from the conclusion that Accardi requires us to hold that the severance benefit here at issue is a perquisite of seniority. If it is not that but rather o

44 Ill.2d 73 (1969) 254 N.E.2d 467 RICHARD A. LANGE, Appellee, v. COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF CHICAGO, INC., Appellant. No. 42021. Supreme Court of Illinois. Opinion filed December 19, 1969. *74 HINSHAW, CULBERTSON, NOELMANN, HOBAN AND FULLER, of Chicago, (JOHN L. KIRKLAND and D. KENDALL GRIFFITH, of cou

145 Ind. App. 504 (1969) 251 N.E.2d 575 CHESTNUT v. COCA COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF INDIANAPOLIS. No. 669A96. Court of Appeals of Indiana. Filed October 22, 1969. Rehearing denied December 1, 1969. Ross P. Walker, of Indianapolis, for appellant. Geoffrey Segar and Edward J. Ohleyer, of Indianapolis,

743 N.W.2d 751 (2008) Irene HOFFMAN, et al., Respondents, v. NORTHERN STATES POWER COMPANY, d/b/a Xcel Energy Appellant. No. A06-2275. Court of Appeals of Minnesota. January 22, 2008. *752 Vincent J. Esades, Lori A. Johnson, Scott W. Carlson, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Minneapolis, MN, Charles S. Siegel (pro hac vice), Wate