Editing Constitutional Law Maggs/4th ed. Outline II
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 594: | Line 594: | ||
The government comes to you and takes your property to build a road. It doesn’t matter how big or small it is, you still get compensation.It is a taking if the government requires cables to be installed in an apartment building. | The government comes to you and takes your property to build a road. It doesn’t matter how big or small it is, you still get compensation.It is a taking if the government requires cables to be installed in an apartment building. | ||
====[[LORETTO V. TELEPROMPTER MANHATTAN CATV CORP.]], Supreme Court of theUnited States (1982)==== | ====[[LORETTO V. TELEPROMPTER MANHATTAN CATV CORP.]], Supreme Court of theUnited States (1982)==== | ||
Teleprompter Manhattan CATV, would obtain permission from property owners to run cable through their premises. In exchange, for this permission the Respondent would pay the owners 5% of the gross revenue recognized from the installation of cable in the apartment buildings. In 1973, the New York legislature passed an act stipulating that a landlord “could not interfere with the installation of cable television facilities upon his property.” (Industry Friendly Statute) '''''Issue #1.''''' Does a minor, but permanent physical occupation of property under the authorization of the government constitute a “taking”? ℙ''''':''''' This installation is a trespass. [Class Action inverse Condemnation, need compensation] | Teleprompter Manhattan CATV, would obtain permission from property owners to run cable through their premises. In exchange, for this permission the Respondent would pay the owners 5% of the gross revenue recognized from the installation of cable in the apartment buildings. In 1973, the New York legislature passed an act stipulating that a landlord “could not interfere with the installation of cable television facilities upon his property.” (Industry Friendly Statute) '''''Issue #1.''''' Does a minor, but permanent physical occupation of property under the authorization of the government constitute a “taking”? ℙ''''':''''' This installation is a trespass. [Class Action inverse Condemnation, need compensation] | ||
'''''BRIGHT LINE RULE #1:''''' A PERMANENT PHYSICAL OCCUPATION AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT IS A TAKING. PERIOD. | '''''BRIGHT LINE RULE #1:''''' A PERMANENT PHYSICAL OCCUPATION AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT IS A TAKING. PERIOD. |