Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan Catv Corp.
458 U.S. 419 · Decided June 30, 1982 · Supreme Court of the United States
At a glance
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan Catv Corp. was decided on June 30, 1982 by a vote of 6–3. The Court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case. Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Due process, takings clause” in the Due Process area. SCDB records that the Court declared a state or territorial law, regulation or constitutional provision unconstitutional.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 458 U.S. 419 · 102 S. Ct. 3164 · 73 L. Ed. 2d 868 · 1982 U.S. LEXIS 150
- Docket number
- 81-244
- Decided
- June 30, 1982
- Argued
- March 30, 1982
- Court era
- Burger Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party received a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 6–3
- Majority opinion
- Thurgood Marshall
- Opinion assigned by
- Warren E. Burger
- How the case arrived
- Appeal
- Issue (SCDB)
- Due process, takings clause
- Issue area
- Due Process
- Legal provision
- Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Held unconstitutional
- A state or territorial law, regulation or constitutional provision
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Conservative what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice William J. Brennan Jr. | Dissent | |
| Justice Byron R. White | Dissent | |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Chief Justice Warren E. Burger | Majority | |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice William H. Rehnquist | Majority | |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Majority | |
| Justice Sandra Day O'Connor | Majority |
Full case caption
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan Catv Corp. et al.
SCDB identifiers: case 1981-160, docket 1981-160-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Due process, takings clause”
- Texaco, Inc. v. Short
- Dames & Moore v. Regan
- San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. City of San Diego
- Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. BeckwithLaw held unconstitutional
- Summa Corp. v. California ex Rel. State Lands Commission
- Kirby Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States
Cases on the same legal provision: Fifth Amendment (takings clause)
- Agins et Ux. v. City of Tiburon
- Gurley v. Rhoden
- City of Pittsburgh v. Alco Parking Corp.
- United States v. Fuller et Ux.
- United States v. Grand River Dam Authority
- General Box Co. v. United States
Same Term, same area (Due Process)
- Jago v. Van Curen
- Texaco, Inc. v. Short
- Smith v. Phillips
- City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc.
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.
- Schweiker v. McClure
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error