CASE United States v. Nixon‚ 418 U.S. 683 (1974) FACTS A grand jury returned indictments against seven of President Nixon’s White House staff members and political supporters of the President for violation of federal statutes in the Watergate affair‚. The President on the other hand was named as an un-indicted co-conspirator. The Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure - Rule 17 for a subpoena duces tecum‚ a court summons ordering the President
Premium Richard Nixon Watergate scandal President of the United States
company launched 200 ml bottles (namely Chota Coke) priced at Rs.5. CCI announced that it would mostly use the 200 ml bottles in rural areas‚ as it was very price-sensitive. It was also mostly felt that the 200 ml bottles priced at Rs.5 would increase the rate of consumption in rural market. Reports showed
Premium Coca-Cola Coca-Cola
1993 because Pepsi was already there which makes it harder to establish market share with Pepsi there. 3. “Global localization” (glocalization) is a policy that both companies have implemented successfully. Give examples for each company from the case. Pepsi - In 1990‚ Pepsi Foods Ltd. changed the name of their product to "Lehar Pepsi" to conform to foreign collaboration rules. Coca-Cola - ran special promotions where people could win free vacations to Goa‚ a resort state in western India. 4
Premium Marketing Coca-Cola Carbonation
giants‚ Pepsi and Coke‚ entered the Indian market‚ they brought with them the cola wars that had become part of global folklore. This case study details the various battles fought in India by the two rivals with its focus on the publicity campaigns where the two sought to steal each other fizz. The case also outlines battles fought on other fronts - conflicts with bottles‚ product modifications‚ attempts to steal the rival’s employees and other mini wars. On the whole‚ the case attempts to provide
Premium Coca-Cola Marketing Pepsi
ell-planned-out-strategy-63045.html The World Factbook. (2013‚ November). Retrieved from Central Intelligence Agency: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/in.html Ulitin‚ I. (2013). Case Study. Retrieved from Slideshare: http://www.slideshare.net/IvanUlitin/case-study-6
Premium Stakeholder analysis Stakeholder Multinational corporation
Colligative properties in your Coke Have you ever put salt on snow to get rid of it‚ or wondered how your car engine stays warm in cold weather? If you have‚ you’ve probably noticed that the salt quickly melts the snow‚ and you’ve wondered how the engine can stay warm‚ when the metal on the outside of the car is cold. These are just some of the many examples of how colligative properties work in our everyday lives. A colligative property is a property of a solvent that depends on the amount
Premium Coca-Cola Solutions Water
CASE ASSIGNMENT: COKE ZERO Chapter # 8) Do Real Men Drink Diet Coke? When a couple of marketing managers for Coca-Cola told attorney Elizabeth Finn Johnson that they wanted to sue their Coke Zero colleagues for “taste infringement‚” she was baffled. She tried to talk them out of it‚ but they were determined. They argued that Coca-Cola Classic should be protected from the age discrimination it would suffer with the introduction of a newer‚ younger soft drink that tasted exactly the same as the
Premium Coca-Cola Diet Coke
think of refreshment‚ think of ice cold Coca-Cola. 1941 - Coca-Cola is Coke! 1942 - The only thing like Coca-Cola is Coca-Cola itself. 1944 - How about a Coke? 1945 - Coke means Coca-Cola. 1945 - Passport to refreshment. 1947 - Coke knows no season. 1948 - Where there’s Coke there’s hospitality. 1949 - Coca-Cola ... along the highway to anywhere. 1952 - What you want is a Coke. 1954 - For people on the go. 1956 - Coca-Cola ... makes good things
Premium Coca-Cola Diet Coke
Case Briefing #2 Vizcaino v. US Dist. Court for WD of Wash.‚ 173 F. 3d 713 (9th Cir.1999) Material Facts: Donna Vizcaino‚ Jon R. Waite‚ Mark Stout‚ Geoffrey Culbert‚ Lesley Stuart‚ Thomas Morgan‚ Elizabeth Spokoiny‚ and Larry Spokoiny sued on behalf of themselves and a court certified class against Microsoft Corporation and its various pension and welfare plans‚ including its Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP)‚ and sought a determination that they were entitled even as independent
Premium Appeal Habeas corpus Appellate court
ABSTRACT Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark case in criminal procedure of the USA‚ in which the US Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained by illegal search ad seizure which was against the Fourth Amendment‚ will not be used in state courts‚ as well as in federal courts. The Court in Mapp also based its decision on the necessity to protect citizens from police misconduct. This case overrules the decision in the case of Wolf v. Colorado. The Supreme Court decision in Mapp v. Ohio was quite controversial
Premium Supreme Court of the United States United States Constitution Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution