Associated Film Distribution Corporation v. Thornburgh III 81-2706 Budco Quality Theatres Inc 81-2707 Fox Theatres Management Corporation 81-2708’s Empirical Analysis
683 F.2d 808 · 1982
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently November 2013
8 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. O'Brien · Hines v. Davidowitz · Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. · Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego · Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies of phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; (4) in the case of ... motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly; and (5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“authority for the argument that state trade regulation which affects distribution procedures and, indirectly, monetary returns from copyrighted property is invalidated implicitly or explicitly by the terms of the Copyright Act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania finds and declares that the licensing and distribution of feature motion pictures to theatres in this Commonwealth, including the rights and obligations of distributors and exhibitors, vitally affects the general economy as well as the access of the public to works of artistic expression and opinion. In order to promote the public interest and public welfare of this Commonwealth to: (1) insure unabridged access for the public to artistic expression and opinion in feature motion pictures at reasonable prices and at many different locations; (2) avoid undue control of the exhibitors by the distributors; (3) foster vigorous and healthy competition in offering feature motion pictures for the benefit of the public by prohibiting practices through which fair and honest competition is restrained, destroyed or inhibited; (4) promote the wide geographical dissemination at reasonable prices to the public of ideas, opinions and artistic expression in feature motion pictures; (5) prevent delay in the exhibition of feature motion pictures to the public in theatres playing subsequent to the first run showing; (6) prevent theatres from unnecessarily going out of business, thereby resulting in reducing the number of small independent businesses and unemployment with loss of tax revenues and other undesirable consequences; (7) prevent unfair and deceptive acts or practices and unreasonable restraints of trade in the business of distribu”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.