Also known as: franchises · franchisee · franchisees · franchisor · franchisors · franchiser · franchisers · franchising · franchised · business franchise · franchise agreement
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A special right or privilege granted by governmental authority that permits the grantee to conduct an activity otherwise restricted or to use public streets or property for a designated purpose. The grant often carries obligations to serve the public and may be pledged or transferred in corporate transactions.
A special right or privilege granted by governmental authority that permits the grantee to conduct an activity otherwise restricted or to use public streets or property for a designated purpose. The grant often carries obligations to serve the public and may be pledged or transferred in corporate transactions.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The right of a citizen to cast a ballot in public elections. Restrictions on this right trigger equal-protection review when they dilute or deny participation without a compelling justification.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The right of a citizen to cast a ballot in public elections. Restrictions on this right trigger equal-protection review when they dilute or deny participation without a compelling justification.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Frontier Capital borrows funds to expand its cable network and grants the lender a security interest in its operating rights. When Frontier defaults, the lender seeks to foreclose on those rights along with physical assets. The court permits the foreclosure because the corporate statute expressly allows a franchise to serve as collateral for corporate obligations.
Loretto purchases an apartment building and later discovers permanent cable boxes and wires installed on the roof under a city-granted franchise to the cable company. She sues, claiming the installation constitutes a physical taking. The Court holds that even minor permanent occupations authorized by the franchise require compensation.
The City of New London condemns waterfront homes to assemble land for a development project that will include a national hotel franchise. Homeowners challenge the taking as serving a private rather than public use. The Court upholds the condemnation because the overall plan promises increased tax revenue and jobs, satisfying the public-use requirement even though a private franchise will occupy part of the site.
A corporate franchise under the Model Business Corporation Act is a transferable right that may be pledged as collateral. A city-granted utility franchise confers the privilege to occupy public streets and carries public-service obligations that survive merger or transfer to the surviving entity.
Supporting sources
A municipal cable franchise does not shield the company from takings liability when it installs permanent equipment on private buildings. Even minor permanent occupations require just compensation regardless of the franchise authorization.
Supporting sources
The City of Cleburne denies a permit to a group home operator after neighbors object, citing concerns about the residents' ability to vote in local elections. The operator sues, arguing the denial effectively limits political participation by a protected class. The Court applies rational-basis review and finds no legitimate governmental interest supports the restriction.
Tennessee residents allege that the state's legislative districts dilute their votes compared with residents of less populous districts. The state moves to dismiss on political-question grounds. The Court holds the claim justiciable because the right to cast an undiluted vote lies at the core of representative government.
Shelby County seeks to enjoin enforcement of the Voting Rights Act's coverage formula after Congress reauthorizes the statute without updating the triggering criteria. The county argues the formula no longer reflects current conditions. The Court invalidates the formula because it imposes burdens on states without current justification tied to the right to vote.
Restrictions that deny or dilute the right to vote in general or typical local elections must satisfy strict scrutiny. Property-ownership requirements fail this test because they are not necessary to any compelling interest related to voting.
Supporting sources
…in technology may cause the city to reconsider its decision. Indeed, at present some communities apparently grant nonexclusive franchises. Brief for National Satellite Cable Association et al. as Amici Curiae 21. [^maj-15]: In this case, the Court of Appeals noted testimony preceding the enactment of § 828 that the…