Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp PDF

Preview

Summary

Constitutional Law II 2020 case brief for loretto...

Description

LORETTO v. TELEPROMPTER MANHATTAN CATV CORP. 458 U.S. 419 (1982) FACTS: Parties: Appellant: Loretto (Π) Appellee: Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp (Δ) Procedural History: 

Trial judge granted SJ in favor of Δ



Appellate Division affirmed



Court of Appeals affirmed

Relevant Facts: 

NY Statute provided that a landlord must permit a CATV company to install its CATV facilities upon his property and may not demand payment from the company in excess of the amount determined by a state commission (at the time $1)



Π bought an apartment building in NYC and discovered that Δ had installed cables on the building, both crossovers for serving other buildings and noncrossovers for serving Π’s tenants

ISSUE: 

Whether a state may validly authorized an intrusion on to the private property of a private landowner without paying just compensation

PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS: Appellant:  Appellee:  DISPOSITION OF THE COURT: 

Reversed and remanded

RULE OF LAW:



Any permanent intrusion by the state or intrusion authorized by it constitutes a taking for which just compensation must be paid

HOLDING: 

NY statute allowing an intrusion on the private property of a private land owner without paying just compensation is unconstitutional

COURT’S REASONING:    

NY statute works a taking of a portion of Π’s property There is a taking to the extent of the occupation without regard to whether the action achieves an important public benefit or has only minimal economic impact on the owner The cable installation constituted a taking since it involved a direct physical attachment of plates, boxes, wires, bolts and screws to the building Physical occupation of one type of property but not another is no less a physical occupation...