Addabbo v. Donovan

How later courts describe this case

• “In determining whether the defendants are subject to jurisdiction under the long-arm statute____the entire transaction must be considered.”
• exclusive rights to motion picture exhibitor to show film commercially justifiable as reaching largest number of viewers with smallest number of prints and enabling first-run theatres to charge premium prices and to receive benefit of word-of-mouth advertising
• parallel clearances and run schedules by motion picture distributors
• state court suit under § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), where the court stated that it would either “afford a remedy to effectuate federal policy or ... deny all requested relief, should the relief sought contravene federal policy”
• construing the phrase “tortious act within the state”
• distributors’ divergent responses to plaintiff suggests no conspiracy existed