| Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
||||||
| Argued March 30, 1982 Decided June 30, 1982 |
||||||
| Full case name | Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. et al. | |||||
| Prior history | On appeal from the New York Court of Appeals | |||||
| Holding | ||||||
| When the character of the governmental action is a permanent physical occupation of property, the government actions effects 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. | ||||||
| Court membership | ||||||
|
||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||
| Majority | Marshall, joined by Burger, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens, and O'Connor | |||||
| Dissent | Blackmun, joined by Brennan and White | |||||
| Laws applied | ||||||
| U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV | ||||||
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that when the character of the governmental action is a permanent physical occupation of property, the government actions effects regulatory 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. In doing so, it established the permanent physical presence test for regulatory takings.
Contents |
§ 828 of the Executive Law required certain property owners to permit installation and maintenance of certain cable television wires on their property.
Prior to Loretto's acquisition of property, Manhattan Teleprompter installed cable television wires on Loretto's property pursuant to § 828 of the Executive Law.
Loretto, on behalf of all property owners so situated, sued Manhattan Teleprompter for trespass and—insofar as Teleprompter relied on § 828—a taking without just compensation, and requested damages and injunctive relief. N.Y. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute and rendered summary judgment for Manhattan Teleprompter and co-defendants. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Loretto sought reversal of New York Court of Appeals judgment.
The Court addressed the issue of whether Manhattan Teleprompter's minor but permanent physical occupation of Loretto's property constitutes a regulatory taking of property for which just compensation is due under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.
The Court established the rule of law that when the character of the governmental action is a permanent physical occupation of property, the government actions effects regulatory 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 Court held that the Manhattan Teleprompter's minor but permanent physical occupation of Loretto's property constitutes a regulatory taking of property for which just compensation is due under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.
The Court argued as follows: (1) Precedent. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City held that there is no set formula for finding a taking. Pumpelly held that a physical presence with the effect of impairing property's usefulness is a taking. Recent cases focus on the importance of physical invasion as a taking. (2) Precedent and policy. The right to exclude is one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property. Insofar as invasion exists, it destroys each of these rights (to possess, to use, and to dispose). (3) Fairness. Owners have an expectation of privacy, without invasion. (4) Clarity. The invasion rule avoids ambiguity as to both law and fact. (5) Contrary to the assertion of the Manhattan Teleprompter and co-defendants, a physical occupation of only rental property does not make this less of a taking. (6) Contrary to the assertion of Manhattan Teleprompter and co-defendants, the statute in question does not purport to give the tenant any additional right. (7) Contrary to the assertion of Manhattan Teleprompter and co-defendants, this ruling will not reverse the Court's otherwise broad discretion rendered to states in regulating landlord/tenant relationships.
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the N.Y. Court of Appeals.
On remand, the New York Court of Appeals upheld the validity of the statutory provisions empowering the Commission on Cable Television to set compensation for the taking at $1. The Commission concluded that the property value would increase as a result of cable television access, and as such $1 would be sufficient compensation for the permanent intrusion.[2]
This case established, for the first time (but purported to reestablish) that permanent physical presence constitutes a taking per se.