In the case of Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 1981, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a New York law which allowed cable television companies to install their cables on private property without the owner's consent was unconstitutional. The court held that this constituted a permanent physical occupation of property and thus was a taking requiring just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Jean Loretto had purchased an apartment building in New York City with existing cable installations, but she argued that these installations devalued her property and sued for damages. The ruling clarified what constitutes as "taking" under eminent domain laws, establishing precedent for future cases involving similar issues.

In the dissenting opinion for Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., Justice Blackmun, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, argued that the majority's decision was too rigid in its interpretation of what constitutes a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment. They believed that not all permanent physical occupations should be considered takings requiring compensation. Instead, they suggested a more flexible approach where courts would consider factors such as whether the occupation substantially interfered with an owner's use of their property or significantly diminished its value. The dissent also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on government regulation from this ruling; it could hinder efforts to regulate industries like cable television if every minor intrusion onto private property required compensation.