Centel Cable Television Company of Florida v. Thos. White Development Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
902 F.2d 905 · 1990
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Wesch v. Folsom (1993), Frio Ice Sa v. Sunfruit Inc R P (1990)
16 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 47 U.S.C. § 522 · 47 U.S.C. § 541
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. · Nollan v. California Coastal Commission · Federal Communications Commission v. Florida Power Corp. · United States v. Machado
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Admiral’s Cove assumes that Congress could not authorize a cable franchise to use utility easements because such an authorization would be an unconstitutional taking under Loretto..... Since most developers voluntarily grant easements for use by utilities, however, Congress may force the developer to allow a cable franchise to use the easement without offending the taking clause of the Constitution. Such “voluntary” action by developers may be an integral part of zoning procedures or the obtaining of necessary building permits. However obtained, once an easement is established for utilities it is well within the authority of Congress to include cable television as a user.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the developer in this case had already granted the utility easements when the Cable Act was enacted, then the situation here might be strikingly similar to that present in Loretto. Having already granted the utility easements, the developer would have no power to prevent the installation of cable lines on its property. This situation would be analogous to the facts in Loret-to, in which the landlords, having built and rented out apartment buildings, had no practical means to prevent the installation of cable equipment on those buildings. Here, however, the developer had not granted any utility easements when the Cable Act became law. Thus, the Act could be construed not as requiring the developer’s acquiescence in the installation of cable equipment, as was the case in Loretto, but rather as merely placing a condition on the developer’s future development of his property. It would require a more extensive analysis of the Supreme Court’s takings jurisprudence than that present here to resolve the complex issue present in this case. Needless to say, I do not think that Admiral’s Cove adequately addressed the takings concerns in the one footnote that it devoted to this topic. I would urge this circuit, by rehearing en banc if necessary, at least to consider providing a better rationale for the constitutional holding of Admiral’s Cove.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“) and Southern Bell for the purposes of installing and maintaining their utilities. The plat also dedicated a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.