StopUMTS Logo
how to get rid of moles 
Zoeken
   
Voorlichting
06/11/17Beschermen tegen de ra
12/10/17Meetspecialisten, meet
Artikelen
16/11/17ADHD is meer een probleem
16/11/17Mobile phones cause letha
16/11/17Mt Nardi Wildlife Report
15/11/17Cell Phone Headaches –
14/11/1715.000 wetenschappers uit
14/11/17Stralingsbelasting en gel
Berichten Nederland
16/11/17Promotie van een psycholo
16/11/17Toename van klachten in N
14/11/17Aantal antenne-installati
13/11/17Vanavond 13 nov. in Radar
10/11/17Tweede Kamer: Kamervragen
Berichten België
14/11/17Hoe gezond of ongezond is
24/10/17NMBS-baas Sophie Dutordoi
Berichten Internationaal
14/11/17De stralingsbelasting en
09/11/17Bill Gates and Steve Jobs
07/11/175G testing in the world
01/11/17USA: Supreme Court Rally
Ervaringen | Appellen/oproepen
17/11/17Alice kan niet tegen stra
12/11/17Afscherming, voor sommige
05/11/17TV met WiFi; een ervaring
Onderzoeken
14/11/17Modeled and Perceived Exp
06/11/17Decreases in sleep durati
25/10/17Radiation from wireless t
Veel gestelde vragen
13/05/17Vakantie? Witte zo
10/07/16Zeven veel gestelde vrage
Juridische informatie
08/11/17InPower Movement: Early r
19/10/17The precautionary princip
11/10/17Telekom warns of (its own
Oproepen
29/11/17Raadsmarkt ZENDMASTEN &
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