The Coca-Cola Company, and Includible Subsidiaries - Page 3

                                        - 3 -                                         
          23, 1995, at Washington, D.C.2  Petitioner's motion was taken               
          under advisement.                                                           
               Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and                
          avoid unnecessary and expensive trials.  Florida Peach Corp. v.             
          Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988).  Summary judgment may be             
          granted with respect to all or any part of the legal issues in              
          controversy "if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories,                  
          depositions, admissions, and any other acceptable materials,                
          together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no                 
          genuine issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be            
          rendered as a matter of law."  Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v.             
          Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520 (1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th               
          Cir. 1994); Zaentz v. Commissioner, 90 T.C. 753, 754 (1988).  The           
          moving party bears the burden of proving that there is no genuine           
          issue of material fact, and factual inferences will be read in a            
          manner most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.               
          Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 812, 821 (1985).  The facts              
          presented below do not appear to be in dispute, are stated solely           
          for purposes of deciding the motion, and are not findings of fact           
          for this case.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a); Sundstrand Corp v.                   
          Commissioner, supra at 520.                                                 
          I. Background                                                               



               2In addition, the Court considered an amicus curiae brief              
          filed by PepsiCo.                                                           




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011