#LORETTO V TELEPROMPTER INSTALL#

In such a case, “the character of the government action” not only is an important factor in resolving whether the action works a taking but also is determinative. Our cases further establish that when the physical intrusion reaches the extreme form of a permanent physical occupation, a taking has occurred. At the same time, we have long considered a physical intrusion by government to be a property restriction of an unusually serious character for purposes of the Takings Clause. A ‘taking’ may more readily be found when the interference with property can be characterized as a physical invasion by government, than when interference arises from some public program adjusting the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good.”Īs Penn Central affirms, the Court has often upheld substantial regulation of an owner’s use of his own property where deemed necessary to promote the public interest. “So, too, is the character of the governmental action. The economic impact of the regulation, especially the degree of interference with investment-backed expectations, is of particular significance.

Ordinarily, the Court must engage in “essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries.” But the inquiry is not standardless. The Court noted that no “set formula” existed to determine, in all cases, whether compensation is constitutionally due for a government restriction of property. New York City the Court surveyed some of the general principles governing the Takings Clause. Our constitutional history confirms the rule, recent cases do not question it, and the purposes of the Takings Clause compel its retention.

We conclude that a permanent physical occupation authorized by government is a taking without regard to the public interests that it may serve. It is a separate question, however, whether an otherwise valid regulation so frustrates property rights that compensation must be paid. We have no reason to question that determination. The Court of Appeals determined that 828 serves the legitimate public purpose of “rapid development of and maximum penetration by a means of communication which has important educational and community aspects,” and thus is within the State’s police power. Because we conclude that such a physical occupation of property is a taking, we reverse. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that this appropriation does not amount to a taking. In this case, the cable installation occupied portions of appellant’s roof and the side of her building.

#LORETTO V TELEPROMPTER INSTALL#

New York law provides that a landlord must permit a cable television company to install its cable facilities upon his property. This case presents the question whether a minor but permanent physical occupation of an owner’s property authorized by government constitutes a “taking” of property for which just compensation is due under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. JUSTICE MARSHALL DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT. Loretto lost in the state courts and requested Supreme Court review. Loretto considered the state law requiring her to allow cable companies to install and maintain their equipment in her building a “taking” that under the Constitution required compensation. The equipment provided service to units in the building (“noncrossover” connections) as well as to neighboring buildings (“crossover” connections). When she took possession she discovered that the Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation had installed cable equipment in the building. Jean Loretto purchased a five-story apartment building in New York City. Under state regulations an apartment building owner was granted a one-time only payment of $1 when a cable company installed its equipment. Burger, O?Connor, Powell, Rehnquist, StevensĮffective January 1, 1973, Section 828 of the New York Executive Law provided that landlords must allow cable television (CATV) providers the right to install and maintain cable equipment in their apartment buildings.

Loretto v teleprompter