Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Chris22, HLS '22 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.

(1982)

Supreme Court of the United States - 458 U.S. 419

tl;dr:

When the government authorizes a permanent physical occupation of physical property, the authorization is a taking that must be fairly compensated under the Fifth Amendment.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingLoretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. case brief facts & holding

Facts:The law required landlords in the state of New York...

Holding:The Court held that the government had required a permanent...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Justice Marshall
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The legal case concerns a New York law that requires landlords to allow cable television companies to install their facilities on their property. The Court of Appeals upheld the statute, but Chief Judge Cooke dissented, stating that the physical appropriation of a portion of the appellant's property is a taking without regard to the balancing analysis courts ordinarily employ in evaluating whether a regulation is a taking. The Supreme Court ruled that a permanent physical occupation authorized by the government is a taking, and just compensation is due, regardless of the public interests it may serve. The Court noted that the economic impact of the regulation and the character of the governmental action are important factors in determining whether compensation is due for a government restriction of property. The legal cases distinguish between various types of takings, including a permanent physical occupation, a physical invasion short of an occupation, and a regulation that restricts the use of property. The economic impact of the regulation, the extent to which it interferes with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the governmental action are significant factors in determining whether public action works a taking.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Dissenting opinion, author: Justice Blackmun
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The dissenting opinion in this case argues that the Supreme Court's decision to create a rigid per se takings rule for permanent physical occupation authorized by the government is outdated and contradicts previous precedents. The Court's distinction between temporary and permanent physical invasions is untenable, and the constitutionality of temporary invasions should also be subject to a balancing process. The Court's new distinction between "temporary physical invasions" and "permanent physical occupations" is unclear and not significant in this case. The Court's test for determining whether a taking has occurred could lead to endless disputes over whether an individual's property has been "physically" touched. The Court's distinction between a continuous "occupation" and a transient "invasion" has no basis in economic logic or Takings Clause precedent. The case involves a property dispute over a small amount of cable and metal boxes on the roof of an apartment building in Manhattan, and the courts rejected the appellant's claim that a New York law had taken her property.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.

Chat for Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.
brief-664
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.