Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.

7 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Public Trust Doctrine & Water Rights - The Walker Case: Does the Public Trust Doctrine Apply to Water Rights Established in Judicial Decrees?

    Best Best & Krieger LLPRoderick WalstonMarch 24, 2017

    Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124-125 (1978); Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 538-539 (2005). A regulation results in a categorical taking per se — and the balancing test does not apply — if the regulation results in a "physical taking" of the property (Loretto v. Teleprompter CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 434-435 (1982)), or causes the property owner to lose "all economically beneficial uses" of the property. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1019 (1992).

  2. Ninth Circuit: “Access Regulation” Allowing Union Organizing Activities on Employers’ Private Property is Not a Fifth Amendment Taking

    Miller Starr RegaliaMay 13, 2019

    In suing for declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, the plaintiffs alleged that the access regulation creates an easement that allows union organizers to enter their property “without consent or compensation” in violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. They based their takings argument entirely on the theory that the access regulation, as applied to them, constitutes a permanent physical invasion of their property, having no contemplated end-date, and is thus aper setaking underLoretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982). The district court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the regulation constitutes aper sephysical taking but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend.

  3. Industry Challenging County and Municipal Bans on Multiple Fronts

    Sedgwick LLPEarl L. HagströmJanuary 7, 2015

    See Lorettov. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982). This form of taking is often referred to as eminent domain.

  4. Legal Update: Government Precondemnation Entry and Inspection – A Review of Property Reserve, Inc. v. Superior Court (2014)

    Miller Starr RegaliaBill ShiberMay 15, 2014

    The Court noted that any physical intrusion on property, however small, is a per se taking. This concept was well established by the United States Supreme Court in Loreto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982) 458 U.S. 419, in which the Court found that a state statute that authorized a cable television carrier to attach a cable and two cable boxes on the roof of a residential apartment building was a per se taking. As the Supreme Court noted in that case, “[A]n owner is entitled to the absolute and undisturbed possession of every part of his premises.”

  5. In Sharper Focus: Regulatory Takings

    University of Cincinnati College of LawMarianna Brown BettmanMarch 23, 2012

    A physical invasion of property. See Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.,458 U.S. 419 (1982) (law requiring landlords to allow cable companies access to install cable facilities in apartment buildings).2. Regulations that completely deprive an owner of “all economically beneficial use” of the property.

  6. COA Rejects Takings Clause Challenge; Addresses Constitutional Issue Not Properly Raised

    Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLPSean AndrussierJuly 18, 2007

    The U.S. Supreme Court has held that regulatory action is a per se taking requiring just compensation if government requires a property owner to suffer a permanent physical invasion of her property, however minor. See, e.g., Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 538 (2005); Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (state law requiring landlords to permit cable companies to install cable facilities in apartment buildings effected a taking). Don't orders issued under N.C.G.S. 65-75 arguably require a property owner to suffer permanent physical invasion of her property, however minor, by granting descendants (generation after generation) access to visit and maintain permanent burial grounds that happen to be on the property?

  7. Land Use, Zoning and Condemnation

    Frost Brown Todd LLCFebruary 1, 2006

    at 2085. Furthermore, to clarify the appropriate takings analysis under a variety of circumstances, the Court reaffirmed the following takings decisions: per se physical invasions of land should be analyzed in accordance with Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982); regulatory takings when a government action completely deprives an owner of all economic benefit of his land should be analyzed in accordance with Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992); other regulatory takings should be analyzed in accordance with Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978); and finally, land-use exactions should be analyzed in accordance with Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). The Lingle decision was long overdue.