Loretto v teleprompter manhattan catv corp

LORETTO V TELEPROMPTER MANHATTAN CATV CORP INSTALL

and Teleprompter Manhattan CATV (collectively Teleprompter) permission to install a cable on the building and the exclusive privilege of furnishing cable. The previous owner had granted appellees Teleprompter Corp. He concludes that the decisional model should replace both Loretto's per se test and the multifactor balancing test used to decide regulatory takings cases. Appellant Jean Loretto purchased a five-story apartment building located at 303 West 105th Street, New York City, in 1971. The Supreme Court, Special Term, granted summary judgment to Teleprompter and the city, upholding the constitutionality of 828 in both crossover and noncrossover situations. Professor Costonis identifies major developments in modern takings jurisprudence that prefigure the model, and he argues that the per se test adopted by the Supreme Court in Loretto v. 4 Appellee City of New York, which has granted Teleprompter an exclusive franchise to provide CATV within certain areas of Manhattan, intervened. The model contains four elements: a commitment to presumptions rather than per se rules to determine whether property has been taken a due process-takings phase, in which conflicts between welfare and indemnification concerns are mediated through application of the just share principle a pure takings phase, in which a measure's fairness in operation is assessed and a sliding scale to key government's burden of proof in justifying a particular measure in light of the values implicated by the measure. Contributor Names: Marshall, Thurgood (Judge): Supreme Court of the United. Professor Costonis presents a decisional model for the judicial management of compensation practice under the takings clause that comprehends both physical and regulatory incursions. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S.

Loretto v teleprompter manhattan catv corp