Legal Opinion

Coca-Cola Co v. Happiness Candy Stores, Inc.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided June 6, 1933PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor:

There is practically no dispute in these cases upon material matters of fact. The uncontradicted evidence shows that substitutions were made by employees of the defendants' of a product other than Coca-Cola for that beverage when calls for the same were made at the Loft and Happiness, as well as at the Mirror stores. The fact that the customers who made these calls for Coca-Cola were investigators in the employ of the complainant is of no material significance. While it has been indicated in some cases that the testimony of specially employed investigators who gather evidence…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Elgin National Watch Co. v. Illinois Watch Case Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1901
  2. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co. v. Houston Ice & Brewing Co.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1917
  3. Enoch Morgan's Sons Co. v. WendoverU.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1890
  4. Boston Elevated Ry. Co. v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1909
  5. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Wm. R. Warner & Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1921

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Soft-Lite Lens Co. v. RitholzAppellate Court of Illinois · 1939
  2. Coca-Cola Co. v. Nehi Corp.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1942
  3. Coca-Cola Co. v. Loft, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1935

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API