Search : Coca-Cola
Number of summaries found: 13
Search For More Summaries
| Court: | U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Food & Beverages, Government Law, Injury And Tort Law, International Law, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co. |
| Date: | 08/11/09 |
| Case Number: | 06-15851 |
| Summary: | In an action claiming that plaintiffs-trade union leaders' employers, two bottling companies, collaborated with Colombian paramilitary forces to murder and torture plaintiffs, dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where defendants were not vicariously liable for the acts of plaintiffs' employers due to lack of day-to-day control over their operations. |
| Court: | U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | ERISA, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | White v. The Coca-Cola Co. |
| Date: | 09/10/08 |
| Case Number: | 0713938 |
| Summary: | In a claim governed by Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) concerning whether reduction of plaintiff-employees' benefits under defendant-employer Coca Cola's long-term disability plan based on a plaintiffs' receipt of Social Security disability benefits was reasonable and entitled to deference, summary judgment in favor of Coca Cola is affirmed where: 1) the interpretation of the offset provision by Coca-Cola is reasonable and entitled to deference; and 2) the interpretation of the recoupment provision by Coca-Cola is correct. |
| Court: | U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Attorney's Fees, ERISA, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | Byars v. The Coca-Cola Co. |
| Date: | 02/22/08 |
| Case Number: | 06-15708 |
| Summary: | In an action to recover benefits under employer's long-term disability plan, part of the judgment against defendants fixing amount of "own occupation" benefits awarded to plaintiff and part of the judgment for defendants denying "any occupation" benefits to plaintiff are vacated, primarily, where: 1) the district court erred in deciding plaintiff's entitlement to "any occupation" benefits on summary judgment; and 2) the summary judgment opinion did not discuss the "own occupation" issue. |
| Court: | U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Civil Rights, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | Davis v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. Consol. |
| Date: | 02/06/08 |
| Case Number: | 05-12988 |
| Summary: | In employment discrimination case under Title VII alleging a pattern or practice of discrimination toward black employees, summary judgment and dismissal of claims in favor of defendant is vacated in part as to two Title VII hiring claims where the district court did not address them on summary judgment, and defendant admits that the claims are timely. |
| Court: | U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Contracts, ERISA, Health Law, Labor & Employment Law, Sanctions |
| Title: | Kansky v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of New England |
| Date: | 06/29/07 |
| Case Number: | 06-2042 |
| Summary: | In an ERISA suit challenging a plan administrator's decision to deny long-term disability benefits, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where: 1) the evidence supported plaintiff's exclusion under the pre-existing condition language contained in the plan; 2) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment; and 3) plaintiff suffered no prejudice as a result of a delay in the production of documents, thus there were no grounds for sanctions. |
| Court: | Supreme Court of Texas |
| Topic: | Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Food & Beverages, Manufacturing |
| Title: | Coca-Cola Co. v. Harmar Bottling Co. |
| Date: | 10/20/06 |
| Case Number: | 03-0737 |
| Summary: | The Texas Free Enterprise and Antitrust Act will not support extraterritorial relief in the absence of a showing that such relief promotes competition in Texas or benefits Texas consumers. Texas courts, as a matter of interstate comity, will not decide how another state’s antitrust laws and policies apply to injuries confined to that state. |
| Court: | U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Rights, Food & Beverages, Labor & Employment Law |
| Title: | Equal Opportunity Employment Comm'n v. BCI Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles |
| Date: | 06/08/06 |
| Case Number: | 04-2220 |
| Summary: | Summary judgment for defendant-employer on a claim of race discrimination arising from the termination of a black employee is reversed where genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether defendant's proffered explanation for the termination was a pretext for racial discrimination. |
| Court: | U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Civil Procedure, Government Law, Injury And Tort Law, International Law, Property Law & Real Estate |
| Title: | Bigio v. The Coca-Cola Co. |
| Date: | 05/09/06 |
| Case Number: | 05-2426 |
| Summary: | Order dismissing case based on international comity, or in the alternative, forum non conveniens, is reversed where: 1) resolution of the case by U.S. courts will not likely impact on international relations with Egypt; and 2) the plaintiffs' choice of a U.S. forum over an Egyptian one was reasonable and entitled to deference, which the district court failed to give. |
| Court: | U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Constitutional Law, Consumer Protection Law, Cyberspace Law, Intellectual Property, Trademark |
| Title: | COCA-COLA CO. v. PURDY |
| Date: | 09/01/04 |
| Case Number: | 02-2894, 03-1795, 03-1929 |
| Summary: | First Amendment does not protect the use of another's trademark in a domain name to attract an unwitting and unwilling audience to the message of the domain name holder. |
| Court: | U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals |
| Topic: | Commercial Law, Injury And Tort Law, Intellectual Property, Trade Secrets |
| Title: | PENALTY KICK MGMT. LTD. v. COCA-COLA CO. |
| Date: | 01/27/03 |
| Case Number: | 01-12012 |
| Summary: | Plaintiff failed to provide evidence of defendant's actual disclosure or unauthorized use of plaintiff's trade secrets under the Georgia Trade Secrets Act (GTSA). Claims for conversion, breach of confidential relationship and duty of good faith, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit are superseded by the GTSA. |