Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.
Supreme Court of the United States · Decided June 30, 1982 · Core case
Full citation
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982).
VerifiedQuotes, pinpoints and citation checked word for word against the opinion; facts checked against the opinion before publication. October 20, 2026.
Jean Loretto
landlordappellant
Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.
cable television companyappellee
Brief
Facts
The previous owner of a five-story apartment building at 303 West 105th Street in New York City granted Teleprompter permission to install a cable on the building and the exclusive privilege of furnishing cable television service to the tenants. In June 1970, Teleprompter installed a cable slightly under one-half inch in diameter and about 30 feet long along the building, about 18 inches above the roof. It also placed directional taps on the front and rear of the roof, ran cable to the adjoining building, and installed two large silver boxes along the roof cables. The cables were attached by screws or nails penetrating the masonry at about two-foot intervals, and other equipment by bolts. At first these were crossover lines, part of a cable network circling the block to serve other buildings. Jean Loretto bought the building in 1971. Two years later, Teleprompter dropped a noncrossover line down the front of the building to serve her own tenants. Before 1973, Teleprompter routinely paid owners 5% of the gross revenues it realized from their property. Section 828 of New York's Executive Law, effective January 1, 1973, barred a landlord from interfering with cable installations on his property, from demanding payment from tenants for permitting cable, and from demanding payment from a cable company beyond an amount the State Commission on Cable Television found reasonable. The Commission ruled that a one-time $1 payment is the normal fee. Loretto did not discover the cable until after she bought the building.
Issue
Does a minor but permanent physical occupation of an owner's real property authorized by government constitute a taking of property for which just compensation is due under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Holding
Teleprompter's direct physical attachment of cable lines, boxes, bolts, and screws to the roof and exterior masonry of Loretto's building was a permanent physical occupation authorized by state law, so it constituted a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
IRAC
Learn the citation form
Short video lessons on the rules behind this brief’s citations, each with two pause-and-practice exercises.
The Citation Code · citationcode.com/cases/loretto-v-teleprompter-manhattan-catv-corp