XII. EMINENT DOMAIN 1107-27, 1132-98

Question 1

Eminent domain

Answer 1

The federal, state, and local government has the power to take title to property against the owner’s will.

Question 2

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.

Answer 2

Holding: If the government does not invade the property itself but authorizes third parties to permanently occupy private property, then it is a per se taking; however, if the occupation is not permanent, the balancing test applies.

∆ had placed certain CATV components, wires and boxes, on the property of π. The CATV components were installed prior to π’s purchase of the building in question and π did not learn of them until after she purchased the building. Under a NY statute, a landlord could only demand a one-time $1 payment from the cable company for such an installation of wires and boxes. The state’s Cable Commission argued that the law served a legitimate police power purpose because it eliminated landlord fees and conditions that inhibited the development of CATV which had important educational and community benefits.

Question 3

Hadacheck v. Sebastian

Answer 3

Brick case - court upheld the finding of the trial court that the ordinance was a good-faith measure enacted to protect against a harm, and was thus an exercise of the police power and non-compensable.

Question 4

Why couldn’t the Hadacheck court conclude that the cost of shutting down the brick factory should be borne by others, as in the Spur case?

Answer 4

If Hadacheck had been on the property long enough to realize the benefit of his investment, shouldn’t be entitled to any more compensation. If due to Hadacheck’s successful business the city was able to grow and develop, then he can’t go back and argue that it is unfair!