Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Pepsico, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• theories, set forth in opposition brief are not a substitute for specificity of allegations in antitrust complaint
• “[T]he court must review the allegations of fact contained in the [antitrust] complaint; for this purpose the court does not consider conclusory recitations of law.”
• conclusory allegations of conspiracy in antitrust action are insufficient when the only specified activity is conduct specifically authorized by exempting legislation for soft drink industry
• \ '[I]t is axiomatic that the complaint may not be amended by the briefs in opposition to a motion to dismiss.' \ (citation omitted)
• \It is one thing to set forth theories in a brief; it is quite another to make proper allegations in a complaint.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).