Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. et al.
Court of the
Johnson, pp. 815-820
Facts: The state of
Issue: Is a “minor but permanent physical occupation” of property authorized by the government a “taking”?
Rule: SORTA NEW RULE! The permanent physical occupation of another’s property, authorized by the government, is a taking.
Analysis: The majority argues for a bright-line rule that is strongly protective of property rights. The dissent claims that such inflexible, “per se” rules are uncalled for and that a multifactor balancing test is more appropriate. The dissent fears a “slippery slope” of litigation on the issue.
Conclusion: The Court of Appeals of