StopUMTS Logo
how to get rid of moles 
Zoeken
   
Voorlichting
05/02/18Voorlichting voor wie nie
23/01/18Meetspecialisten, afsc
Artikelen
18/02/18Can Cell Tower Radiation
14/02/18Vaccins: een veiligheidsv
11/02/18Autisme: New CDC Statisti
09/02/18De Volkskrant: Leven met
08/02/18Skepsis en de Vereniging
06/02/18How 5G Will Kill the Bird
Berichten Nederland
16/02/18Blogs Hugo Schooneveld (v
15/02/18Mogelijk toch 5G-netwerk
15/02/185G: Nederlandse overheid
09/02/18Haarlemmers stappen naar
06/02/18Foto's: Ziek van Straling
Berichten België
14/02/18Stralingsoverlast door ze
13/02/18Strenge stralingsnormen b
Berichten Internationaal
17/02/1818 child smart watches fa
16/02/18Duitsland: Tewlekom - waa
15/02/18USA: SpaceX mag van FCC-v
15/02/18Frankrijk verbiedt telefo
Ervaringen | Appellen/oproepen
09/02/18Burostoel met smart activ
15/01/18Ziekmakende ervaringen me
12/01/18Soms is tinnitus geen tin
Onderzoeken
15/02/18Effects of electromagneti
07/02/18NTP: High Exposure to Rad
02/02/18Occupational exposure to
Veel gestelde vragen
13/05/17Vakantie? Witte zo
10/07/16Zeven veel gestelde vrage
Juridische informatie
23/01/18Reeks publicaties op juri
23/01/18Juridisch advies en begel
19/01/18Afspraken voor beterere t
Oproepen
17/03/18Cursus straling meten voo
03/03/18Lezing: Wat doen elektrom
31/01/18Witte zone in Getelo (Ned
Folders
10/09/17Brochures, folders, websi
29/04/16USA: Meer dan 50 tips voo
Briefwisselingen | Archief: 2008, 2005
14/02/18Voorbeeldbrief Gemeentera
11/02/18Open brief aan KPN na ond
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