Legal Opinion
Associated Film Distribution Corp. v. Thornburgh
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided September 12, 1986No. 85-1545PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
SLOVITER, Circuit Judge.
This is the second time that this challenge to the Pennsylvania Feature Motion Picture Fair Business Practice Law, 73 P.S. §§ 203-1 to 203-11 (the Act), has been before this court.
The Act has five substantive provisions. First, it prohibits distributors from licensing films through “blind bidding”, by requiring the distributors to hold a trade screening of any film in Pennsylvania before entering into a licensing agreement with an exhibitor. Id. § 203-4.
Second, the Act provides that a film licensing agreement that bases payment to the distributor on…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Wayte v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Exxon Corp. v. Governor of MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Orson, Inc. T/a Roxy Screening Rooms v. Miramax Film Corp. Orson, Inc., D/b/a/ Roxy Screening RoomsCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
- Orson, Inc. T/a Roxy Screening Rooms v. Miramax Film Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
- Storer Cable Communications v. City of MontgomeryDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama · 1992
- Orson, Inc. v. Miramax Film Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1994
- Regal Cinemas, Inc. v. City of Mayfield HeightsOhio Court of Appeals · 2000
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.