Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. 458 U.S. 419 (1982) Loretto owned an apartment building. In order to provide cable tv service to the residents, Manhattan CATV installed a cable on the outside of the building. There was a New York law (§828) that required property owners to allow installation and maintenance of cable wires on their property. Loretto, upset at the aesthetic damage an ugly wire caused her property, sued to have §828 declared unconstitutional. Loretto argued that the permanent physical occupation of her property constituted a taking and was an unconstitutional violation of the Takings Clause. Manhattan CATV argued that §828 was not a taking and was just a regulation on the permissible use of rental property by tenants. They didn't have satellite tv back then, so without a cable, a tenant would be limited in what channels they could receive. The Trial Court found the law to be constitutional. Loretto appealed. The New York Supreme Court affirmed. Loretto appealed. The US Supreme Court reversed and found §828 to be unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court found that the cable represented a 'permanent physical occupation' of Loretto's property (albeit a very minor one). The Court found that a 'permanent physical occupation' constitutes a regulatory taking without regard to whether the action achieves an important public benefit or has only minimal economic impact on the owner. A regulatory taking refers to a situation in which a government regulates a property to such a degree that the regulation effectively amounts to an exercise of the government's eminent domain power without actually divesting the property's owner of title to the property. The Court found that the Takings Clause of the Constitution prevents the government from taking someone's property without compensation. The case was remanded to determine how much money Loretto was due for her loss. The Court gave Loretto $1, finding that her property value would actually increase as a result of access to cable tv.