![loretto v teleprompter manhattan catv corp loretto v teleprompter manhattan catv corp](https://image.slideserve.com/163680/nollan-v-california-coastal-commission-l.jpg)
The Court concluded that the amount of compensation was a matter for the state court to determine on remand. In addition, the purposes of the Takings Clause compelled retention. The Court noted that Constitutional history confirmed that this was a taking and recent cases did not question the rule. The Court explained that to the extent the government permanently occupied physical property, it effectively destroyed the right of the owner to exclude or control that portion of her property.
Loretto v teleprompter manhattan catv corp install#
1981-1982) provided that a landlord must permit a cable television company to install its cable facilities upon the landlord's property. Plaintiff argues, however, that although TelePrompter Manhattan was formed under the Transportation Corporations Law it lost its power of condemnation under.
![loretto v teleprompter manhattan catv corp loretto v teleprompter manhattan catv corp](https://image.slideserve.com/163680/giger-v-city-of-omaha-n.jpg)
Reversing the state court, the Court held that the physical occupation of an owner's property authorized by the government was a "taking" of property. 1849 (1982) First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Appellant filed a class action alleging that the installation was a trespass and a taking without just compensation. OVERVIEW: Appellant purchased an apartment building in which the prior owner had allowed appellee cable company to install a cable on the building and to furnish cable television services to the tenants. 1981-1982) did not constitute a "taking" of property for which just compensation was required by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. York, holding that a minor but permanent physical occupation of an owner's property authorized by N.Y. Case Brief - Rule of Law: A permanent physical occupation authorized by government is a taking without regard. 245 (1987) regulation of the rates that utilities may charge cable companies for pole attachments does not constitute a taking in the absence of any requirement that utilities allow attachment and acquiesce in physical. case brief summaryĪppellant landlady challenged a judgment of the Court of Appeals of New According to the court, Southview failed to adequately allege the elements of a physical taking established in Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S.