StopUMTS Logo
how to get rid of moles 
Zoeken
   
Voorlichting
16/01/18Toon : de 'slimme' thermo
14/01/18Medical Dictionary; micro
Artikelen
14/01/18Can Cell Phones Cause Fem
14/01/18Wetenschappers binden str
12/01/18Apple: Open letter from J
12/01/18Studenten die vaker met s
08/01/18Zonnepanelen; Solar Panel
06/01/18FCC geeft vergunning voor
Berichten Nederland
14/01/18Ziek van Straling; Fotose
12/01/18Stripheldenbuurt wil geen
12/01/18Stijging aantal euthanasi
11/01/18Stijging aantal implantee
08/01/18Ruimte in de ether voor 5
Berichten België
10/01/18Vereniging ElektroHyperSe
01/12/17Belgische campus krijgt b
Berichten Internationaal
15/01/18Frankrijk pakt belabberde
12/01/18Oostenrijk: Richtlijnen v
12/01/18Frankreich verordnet Stra
09/01/18USA: CDPH Cell Phone Safe
Ervaringen | Appellen/oproepen
15/01/18Ziekmakende ervaringen me
12/01/18Soms is tinnitus geen tin
12/01/18Bijnier probleem met smar
Onderzoeken
03/01/18EMFs + Wildlife
29/12/17Radiofrequency EMFs and H
19/12/17624 wetenschappelijke
Veel gestelde vragen
13/05/17Vakantie? Witte zo
10/07/16Zeven veel gestelde vrage
Juridische informatie
01/01/18Antennebeleid op basis va
15/12/17(Persbericht) Phonegate:
08/11/17InPower Movement: Early r
Oproepen
10/12/17Haarlem: Raadsmarkt ZENDM
11/11/17Cursus ‘Straling meten
29/10/17Petitie: Geen uitbreiding
Folders
10/09/17Brochures, folders, websi
29/04/16USA: Meer dan 50 tips voo
Briefwisselingen | Archief: 2008, 2005
10/07/17Brief naar de gemeente C.
14/06/17Mail naar 'De Monitor' na
Illustraties
 Algemeen
 Fotoalbum zendmasten
 Wetenschappelijke illustraties
USA: Court rules against cell tower company    
Ga naar overzicht berichten in: Juridische Informatie

USA: Court rules against cell tower company
woensdag, 14 oktober 2015 - Dossier: Juridische informatie


Bron: www.muskogeephoenix.com/news/court-rules-against-cell-tower-company/article_b103cdb9-92d1-59c3-8b13-ffb657cc7c9a.html
13 okt. 2015


bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/muskogeephoenix.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/b/cd/bcdab362-8e9a-57e7-b027-3f80a5f74005/561c5b2f0c541.image.jpg?resize=760%2C570

A state appellate court upheld a local judge's ruling that a telecommunications tower erected near the property of a Muskogee County man constitutes a private nuisance that must be abated by removal.

A lawyer representing the defendants named in the lawsuit filed by Ken Laubenstein and Billie Wallace said it is too early to know how his clients plan to proceed. They could ask the Oklahoma Civil Court of Appeals to reconsider its opinion, which was released Friday, or petition the Oklahoma Supreme Court for further review.

''I really can't tell you what the plan is,'' Thomas Marcum, who represents BoDe Tower, said Monday afternoon. ''I just received the opinion ... so I really can't tell you what the plan is.''

The lawsuit was filed in 2010 after a 250-foot cell tower was built near Laubenstein's property — a nearly 170-acre ''wildlife sanctuary'' that is listed on the Oklahoma Natural Areas Registry — and tried in 2013 by Muskogee County Associate District Judge Norman D. Thygesen. After the trial, which lasted five days during the course of about eight months, Thygesen found the structure erected by BoDe Tower to be ''a private nuisance'' that must ''be abated'' and ''removed.''

A private nuisance is something that interferes with ''a person's interest in the private use and enjoyment'' of his or her land. Laubenstein, who is represented by D.D. Hayes, presented evidence that the tower's flashing strobe lights and red beacons constantly shined ''through the 14 rooftop skylights'' of his home.

Defendants contend the tower constitutes a ''legalized nuisance'' that provides improved cell phone service for residents of the Gooseneck Bend area and deny the tower has an adverse ''effect on wildlife.''

Thygesen disagreed. He ordered that the tower be removed within 60 days of his ruling but stayed the order and allowed it to stand pending the outcome of the appeal. Appellate Court Judge Deborah B. Barnes agreed with Thygesen, noting that ''the tower sticks out like a sore thumb'' over Laubenstein's property.

''His property was so pristine prior to the construction of the tower that during the day he could he could pursue a hobby in nature photography,'' Barnes wrote in the opinion. ''Now, during the day, he can still pursue this hobby, but a reflection of the tower is cast across almost the entire surface of the lake — a reflection which follows the view wherever he/she is positioned about the water — and a white strobe light constantly flashes 'like a big flashbulb going off every second' through the day. ...''

The appellate court found that the tower ''annoys'' and ''injures'' Laubenstein's ''comfort'' and ''repose.''


Ga terug naar het hoofdmenu
Afdrukken | Vragen | RSS | Disclaimer