Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.

Supreme Court of the United States · 1982 · Property

PropertyConstitutional Lawtakingsphysical occupationcategorical ruleper se takingTakings Clauseper se taking

Facts

Jean Loretto owned a five-story apartment building in New York City on which Teleprompter had installed cable equipment, including cables, directional taps, and two large silver boxes attached to the roof and exterior wall with screws, nails, and bolts. New York Executive Law § 828 required landlords to permit cable television facilities on their property and limited landlord compensation, with the State Commission ruling that a one-time $1 fee was normally reasonable. The installation included both crossover and noncrossover components, and Loretto alleged that the state-authorized occupation of her building was a taking. The Court addressed only the taking question, not the amount of compensation due.

Issue

Whether a minor but permanent physical occupation of an owner's property, when authorized by government, constitutes a taking for which just compensation is required under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. More specifically, the question was whether Teleprompter's cable installation on Loretto's building under § 828 was such a taking.

Rule

A permanent physical occupation of real property authorized by government is a taking to the extent of the occupation, without regard to whether it serves an important public interest or has only minimal economic impact on the owner. Temporary physical invasions and regulations that merely restrict use are not governed by this categorical rule and instead require a more complex balancing inquiry.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Oregon enacts a statute requiring owners of apartment buildings in Portland to allow a private internet provider to bolt a palm-sized signal box and fiber line onto each building's exterior wall whenever a tenant requests service. The equipment occupies very little space and improves residents' access to communications services.

If a landlord challenges the statute under the Takings Clause, which is the strongest argument?

Explanation. The majority held that a permanent physical occupation of real property authorized by government is a taking without regard to the size of the occupation, the public interests served, or the minimal economic impact on the owner. The key factor is the character of the invasion: a third party is permanently occupying part of the landlord's property, destroying the owner's right to exclude that occupation. Indemnity for damage may matter to burdens or compensation, but it does not defeat the existence of a taking. (Derived from Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982).)