Section 14
- Citation
- Section 14
- Parent Document
- Troy Ltd. v. Renna, 727 F.2d 287 (1984)
- Jurisdiction
- United States (federal)
- Effective Date
- 1984-01-30
Other Sections in This Document (102)
- Troy Ltd. v. Renna, 727 F.2d 287 (1984)
- Troy Ltd. v. Renna, 727 F.2d 287 (1984)
- Troy Ltd. v. Renna, 727 F.2d 287 (1984)
- Troy Ltd. v. Renna, 727 F.2d 287 (1984)
- Troy Ltd. v. Renna, 727 F.2d 287 (1984)
- Troy Ltd. v. Renna, 727 F.2d 287 (1984)
- Troy Ltd. v. Renna, 727 F.2d 287 (1984)
- Troy Ltd. v. Renna, 727 F.2d 287 (1984)
- Troy Ltd. v. Renna, 727 F.2d 287 (1984)
- Troy Ltd. v. Renna, 727 F.2d 287 (1984)
- Troy Ltd. v. Renna, 727 F.2d 287 (1984)
- Troy Ltd. v. Renna, 727 F.2d 287 (1984)
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
- Section 14
Full Text
790 charsWe also hold that the Tenancy Act is not a taking for a “public use.”12 The installation at issue in Loretto is the exemplar of a public use. The challenged New York law authorized an occupation of private property by a common carrier, Teleprompter, engaged in a classic public utility function.13 The carrier’s installation of “crossover” and “noncrossover” cables on the plaintiff’s roof, 458 U.S. at 422, 102 S.Ct. at 3180, afforded broadcasters a common means of communication with tenants in the plaintiff’s building and in the adjacent area. Consequently, Loretto cannot reasonably be read without an awareness of the public use involved in the taking. Loretto plainly does not hold that a “permanent physical occupation” is a taking without regard for the public use of the property.