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