Connection lost
Server error
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A New York law forced a landlord to allow a cable company to permanently install equipment on her building. The Supreme Court held that any permanent physical occupation, no matter how small, is a per se taking requiring just compensation.
Legal Significance: Established the “permanent physical occupation” rule: any government-authorized permanent physical occupation of private property is a per se taking, regardless of the public interest served or the minimal economic impact on the owner.
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
A New York statute, N.Y. Exec. Law § 828, required landlords to permit cable television companies to install facilities on their rental properties. Pursuant to this law, Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. installed cable equipment, including wires, plates, and boxes, on the roof and exterior wall of an apartment building owned by appellant Jean Loretto. The installation occupied approximately 1.5 cubic feet of space. The statute also authorized a state commission to determine a reasonable fee for this access, which was set at a one-time payment of $1. Loretto, who purchased the building after the installation was in place, filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that the installation constituted a taking of her property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the statute, applying a balancing test and concluding that the minor intrusion did not constitute a taking because it did not have an excessive economic impact or interfere with reasonable investment-backed expectations.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a state law authorizing a minor but permanent physical occupation of a landlord’s property by a cable television company constitute a taking for which just compensation is required under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Yes. The New York law authorizing the permanent physical installation of cable Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in repre
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a state law authorizing a minor but permanent physical occupation of a landlord’s property by a cable television company constitute a taking for which just compensation is required under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Conclusion
This case created a crucial categorical rule within Takings Clause jurisprudence, establishing Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation
Legal Rule
A permanent physical occupation of private property authorized by government is a Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea comm
Legal Analysis
The Court, in an opinion by Justice Marshall, established a bright-line, categorical Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia dese
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A permanent physical occupation of private property authorized by government is