BBCI, Inc. v. Canada Dry Delaware Valley Bottling Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION AND ORDER
JOHN MORGAN DAVIS, Senior District Judge.
Defendant Pepsi Cola Bottling Company of Pennsauken (“Pepsi”) seeks post-trial relief from a jury verdict against it based on both a contract claim and an antitrust claim. Canada Dry Delaware Valley Bottling Co. (“Canada Dry”) was absolved of all liability by the jury, and is not involved in these post trial motions. Both claims against Pepsi relate to a sub-franchise agreement between Pepsi and Booth Bottling Co., Inc. (“Booth”). The breach of contract claim is based on the allegedly premature termination of this sub-franchise…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Ludwig Honold Mfg. Co. v. Harold A. Fletcher and United Automobile Workers, Local 416Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1969
- Easton v. Washington County InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Waldman v. ShoemakerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Greenberg v. Aetna InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
- A.L.K. Corporation v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1971
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Smith v. GriffithsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1984
- Chuy v. Philadelphia Eagles Football ClubDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1977
- County of Erie v. American States InsuranceDistrict Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1983
- Ganassi v. Buchanan Ingersoll, P.C.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
- McKinney Drilling Co. v. Collins Co., Inc.District Court, N.D. Alabama · 1981
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.