Because we can find no genuine issues of material fact, we conclude that, based on the applicable precedent, defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this record. B. ANALYSIS 1. Legal Standards The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. U.S. ConstAmend. V. Generally, the applicable precedent recognizes two types of compensable takings. Golden Pac. Bancorp v. United States, 15 F.3d 1066, 1071-72 (Fed.Cir.1994). First, government action which effects a physical invasion of private property or which amounts to a permanent occupation thereof arises to a taking under the Constitution. See, e.g., Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982) (<HOLDING>). This type of regulatory action is
holding the claimant established by clear and convincing evidence that her depression was caused by her compensable physical injury 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 the installation of catv facilities on plaintiffs property to be a physical taking 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