This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
|subject=Property | |subject=Property | ||
|appealed_from=NY Court of Appeals (highest NY court) | |appealed_from=NY Court of Appeals (highest NY court) | ||
|facts=Loretto owned a 5-story apartment building in New York City in the late 1970s. | |facts=Loretto owned a 5-story apartment building in New York City in the late 1970s. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 13: | ||
|holding=A physical occupation of property with cables is a taking even when minor & backed by good intentions. | |holding=A physical occupation of property with cables is a taking even when minor & backed by good intentions. | ||
|comments=*[[Constitutional_Law_Maggs/4th_ed._Outline_II#LORETTO_V._TELEPROMPTER_MANHATTAN_CATV_CORP..2C_Supreme_Court_of_theUnited_States_.281982.29]] | |comments=*[[Constitutional_Law_Maggs/4th_ed._Outline_II#LORETTO_V._TELEPROMPTER_MANHATTAN_CATV_CORP..2C_Supreme_Court_of_theUnited_States_.281982.29]] | ||
*SCOTUS remanded the case to the New York trial court; the trial court was forced to agree with SCOTUS that a taking had occurred; nevertheless, the trial court ruled that $1 was just compensation for Loretto. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/loretto-v-teleprompter-manhattan-catv-corp | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/loretto-v-teleprompter-manhattan-catv-corp | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |source_type=Video summary | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |||
|link=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/458/419/case.html | |||
|case_text_source=Justia | |||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 03:39, July 14, 2023
| Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | June 30, 1982 |
| Appealed from | NY Court of Appeals (highest NY court) |
Facts
Loretto owned a 5-story apartment building in New York City in the late 1970s.
The state of New York passed a law requiring landlords to permit the installation of cables by cable companies.
The owner of each building--under the new law--would receive only a nominal $1 for allowing the wires to pass through their property.Procedural History
Loretto filed a lawsuit claiming that the state had engaged in a taking of her property without just compensation. Loretto loses at the trial court in New York.
Issues
Does a state statute that authorizes a small & permanent physical occupation of a property constitute a taking in accordance with the Takings clause in the 5th Amendment?
Holding
A physical occupation of property with cables is a taking even when minor & backed by good intentions.
Comments
- SCOTUS remanded the case to the New York trial court; the trial court was forced to agree with SCOTUS that a taking had occurred; nevertheless, the trial court ruled that $1 was just compensation for Loretto.
