Erler v. Graham Packaging Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Stringfield v. United Food & Commerical Workers Dist. Union Local Two

    No. 15-0694-CV-W-FJG (W.D. Mo. Sep. 6, 2017)

    Id. at 1069 (internal quotations omitted).Erler v. Graham Packaging Co., No. 4:14-CV-00931-JCH, 2015 WL 4723681,*3 (E.D.Mo. Aug. 10, 2015). In DelCostello v. Int'l Bhd. Of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151,103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983), the Court stated that a hybrid action is really "two causes of action.

  2. Perrigo Co. v. Merial Ltd.

    267 F. Supp. 3d 1364 (N.D. Ga. 2017)   Cited 2 times

    In other words, Perrigo never entered into a new agreement with Merial at the same time as it wore Velcera or Sergeant's shoes. Even farther afield are cases like Erler v. Graham Packaging Co., No. 4:14–cv–931, 2015 WL 4723681 (E.D. Mo. Aug, 10, 2015), where the parties to contract one and contract two are the same (no assignments to muddy the waters).Underlying the "last in time" rule applied in Decca Records is the idea that two parties who execute a second contract covering a given subject matter do so having knowledge of the first. If terms in the second conflict with the first, courts assume that the parties intended the difference and thus intended that the newer term control.