Appellant then brought a class action for damages and injunctive relief in a New York state court, alleging, inter alia, that installation of the cables insofar as appellee companies relied on the New York statute constituted a taking without just compensation. After purchasing a five-story apartment building in New York City, appellant landlord discovered that appellee CATV companies had installed cables on the building, both "crossovers" for serving other buildings and "noncrossovers" for serving appellant's tenants. Pursuant to the statute, the Commission ruled that a one-time $1 payment was a reasonable fee.
#Teleprompter test install
Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.Ī New York statute provides that a landlord must permit a cable television (CATV) company to install its CATV facilities upon his property and may not demand payment from the company in excess of the amount determined by a State Commission to be reasonable. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. He felt that literal applications of this rule would result in decisions that overtly clashed with precedents. Reluctant to apply such a strict rule, Blackmun would have preferred to extend the Court's traditional practice of considering each Fifth Amendment case on its specific facts. He found that a property owner has the exclusive right to enjoyment of the property, so any type of occupation interferes with the property owner's rights and can be considered a taking. Taking an extremely broad view of Fifth Amendment protections, Marshall wrote that any government incursion on a private party's property requires compensation if the incursion is permanent and physical. Both of the state courts disagreed, finding that the statute was constitutional. Loretto argued that placing the equipment on her property was a trespass, and she challenged the statute's constitutionality on the grounds that it was a taking of property without just compensation.
Teleprompter had installed equipment for cable television on her property without her consent, as part of its compliance with a New York law requiring apartment house owners to offer tenants access to cable television reception. Loretto sued Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation under the theory that her Fifth Amendment rights had been violated.
0 kommentar(er)
