Free US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case summaries from Justia.
If you are unable to see this message, click here to view it in a web browser. | | US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit September 30, 2020 |
|
|
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Mar. 15, 1933 - Sep. 18, 2020 | In honor of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justia has compiled a list of the opinions she authored. For a list of cases argued before the Court as an advocate, see her page on Oyez. |
| | |
Click here to remove Verdict from subsequent Justia newsletter(s). | New on Verdict Legal Analysis and Commentary | Is Anyone Surprised That Our Norm-Busting President Ignored the Debate Rules? | MICHAEL C. DORF | | Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf comments on last night’s presidential debate between President Trump and former Vice President Biden. Dorf observes that Trump’s repeated violations of the agreed-upon rules of the debate; his outrageous substantive comments refusing to condemn white supremacy (and instead naming a specific white supremacist group) and declining to say he would accept the outcome of the election; and his callous response to Biden’s mention of Biden’s deceased son Beau should alert any yet unaware Americans to the fact that Trump has no sense of decency. | Read More |
|
US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Opinions | Compania Embotelladora Del Pacifico, S.A. v. Pepsi Cola Co. | Docket: 11-5458 Opinion Date: September 29, 2020 Judge: Robert David Sack Areas of Law: Contracts | This appeal stems from a contract dispute between PepsiCo and one of its independent Peruvian bottlers, CEPSA. After PepsiCo terminated its contract with CEPSA, CEPSA filed suit in district court alleging, inter alia, breach of contract claims based on wrongful termination and PepsiCo's alleged failure to protect CEPSA's rights as the exclusive bottler and distributor of PepsiCo products in specified areas of Peru. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in favor of PepsiCo and held that the contract was terminable at will and that PepsiCo had no affirmative duty under the contract to protect CEPSA against the alleged harm to its exclusive rights. In this case, the court applied the New York common law of contracts, looked within the four corners of the contract, and concluded that the Exclusive Bottler Appointment (EBA) was terminable at will and that PepsiCo had no duty to police or prevent transshipment. The court considered CEPSA's remaining arguments on appeal and concluded that they are without merit. | |
|
About Justia Opinion Summaries | Justia Daily Opinion Summaries is a free service, with 68 different newsletters, covering every federal appellate court and the highest courts of all US states. | Justia also provides weekly practice area newsletters in 63 different practice areas. | All daily and weekly Justia newsletters are free. Subscribe or modify your newsletter subscription preferences at daily.justia.com. | You may freely redistribute this email in whole. | About Justia | Justia is an online platform that provides the community with open access to the law, legal information, and lawyers. |
|
|