(explaining that government regulation of private property may sometimes be so burdensome that it is the same as a direct appropriation). Regulatory takings are further subdivided into categorical (or per se) takings and non-categorical. Lingle, 544 U.S. at 538, 125 S.Ct. 2074. Regarding its real property, according to Consumers Energy, this case involves both a categorical and a non-categorical regulatory taking. Pl.’s Resp. at 11. There are two types of categorical takings. Lingle, 544 U.S. at 538, 125 S.Ct. 2074. In the first type, if a regulation subjects a property owner to a permanent physical invasion of property, no matter how minimal, the government must provide just compensation. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982) (<HOLDING>). Consumers Energy alleges that “the applicable
holding that new york law granting cable television companies right to place wires across private property worked a taking of private property holding that the physical occupation caused by the mandatory installation of cable television equipment was a compensable taking holding that a new york state law requiring the owner of an apartment building to allow the installation of cable equipment on the building which amounted to a few wires and a small box on the roof constituted a taking holding that a new york law which required a landlord to permit a cable television company to install its cable facilities on his property was a taking holding that a new york law requiring building owners to permit cable companies to install cable facilities on their premises constituted a taking