Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan Catv Corp. 458 U.S. 419 (1982)
LORETTO v. TELEPROMPTER MANHATTAN CATV CORP. 458 U.S. 419 (1982)
The Supreme Court in the modern era has used an interest balancing analysis to determine whether government regulation amounts to a taking of property for which just compensation must be paid. Here a New York law required landlords to allow cable television companies to install equipment on the landlords' property in order to serve tenants. The Supreme Court, 6–3, held that this governmental authorization of a "permanent physical occupation" of property was, of itself, a "taking"; in such a case no interest balancing need be done.
Kenneth L. Karst
(1986)
More From encyclopedia.com
Garnishment , GARNISHMENT
A legal procedure by which a creditor can collect what a debtor owes by reaching the debtor's property when it is in the hands of someone… Forfeiture , The involuntary relinquishment of money or property without compensation as a consequence of a breach or nonperformance of some legal obligation or t… Berea College , Brewer, David Josiah
David Josiah Brewer was an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1890 to 1910. A defender of personal liberty and property… Harry Andrew Blackmun , Harry Blackmun
Harry Blackmun (born 1908), appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Nixon, became a highly regarded justice usually taking a… United States Supreme Court , The U.S. Supreme Court is the nation's highest judicial body. It leads the judiciary, the branch of government responsible for resolving legal disput… Lochner V. New York , In Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S. Ct. 539, 49 L. Ed. 937 (1905), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a state law restricting the hours employ…
About this article
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan Catv Corp. 458 U.S. 419 (1982)
You Might Also Like
NEARBY TERMS
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan Catv Corp. 458 U.S. 419 (1982)