SULMEYER ET AL., TRUSTEES IN BANKRUPTCY

v.

COCA COLA CO.

Citator

Cited By (76 total)

• S. A. Healy Co. v. Town OF Highland Beach, 355 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
  …uper zoning boards substituting their judgment for that of the legislative and administrative bodies exercising legitimate objectives. Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma, 522 F. 2d 897 (9th Cir. 1975) cert. denied 424 U.S. 934, 96 S.Ct. 1148, 47 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). One who assails zoning legislation has an extraordinary burden of proving that the municipal enactment is invalid. City of Miami Beach v. Wiesen, supra. Appellant has failed to meet his extraordinary burden th…
• Quality Foods de Centro Am., S.A. v. Latin Am. Agribusiness Dev. Corp., S.A., 711 F.2d 989 (11th Cir. 1983)
  …nor .... 15 U.S.C. § 2. The primary distinction between actual monopolization and attempted monopolization is that proof of specific intent is required in attempt cases. Sulmeyer v. Coca Cola Co., 515 F. 2d 835, 850-51 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 934, 96 S.Ct. 1148, 47 L.Ed.2d 341 (1976); see also Dimmitt Agri Industries, Inc. v. CPC International, Inc., 679 F. 2d 516, 531-32 (5th Cir.1982), cert. denied, —U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 1770, 76 L.Ed.2d 344 (1983). . For example, paragraph 10(i) of the comp…
• Janich Bros., Inc. v. The Am. Distilling Co., 570 F.2d 848 (9th Cir. 1977)
  …ported by the evidence. Because the jury’s determination necessarily meant that American had no liability, any error in instructions concerning damages was not prejudicial. Sulmeyer v. Coca Cola Co., 515 F. 2d 835, 852 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 934, 96 S.Ct. 1148, 47 L.Ed.2d 341 (1976). We have carefully reviewed the remaining issues which Janich raises. We find that they are without merit. AFFIRMED. . Private labels are labels or brand names which are owned and controlled by the retailer r…