![loretto v teleprompter manhattan catv corp loretto v teleprompter manhattan catv corp](https://image.slideserve.com/163680/nollan-v-california-coastal-commission-l.jpg)
![loretto v teleprompter manhattan catv corp loretto v teleprompter manhattan catv corp](https://image.slideserve.com/163680/nollan-v-california-coastal-commission19-n.jpg)
![loretto v teleprompter manhattan catv corp loretto v teleprompter manhattan catv corp](https://image.slideserve.com/163680/golden-v-planning-board-of-town-of-ramapo-l.jpg)
OUTCOME: The Court reversed the judgment and remanded the matter so that the state court could determine the appropriate amount of compensation due the landlady. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., as well as its precise ar. 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. The Court held the companys cable installation on the partys building constituted a taking because it was a. Property Law 101 with Sara Bronin is intended to be a resource for anyone to learn about fundamental aspects of property law.
#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. 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. 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. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 1981-1982) did not constitute a "taking" of property for which just compensation was required by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. 825 (1987) (violation of landowners right to exclude) Loretto v. York, holding that a minor but permanent physical occupation of an owner's property authorized by N.Y. Obviously, the longer the physical invasion lasts, the stronger the argument that a. case brief summaryĪppellant landlady challenged a judgment of the Court of Appeals of New Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., the Court held that a permanent physical occupation of property is a taking.