StopUMTS Logo
how to get rid of moles 
Zoeken
   
Voorlichting
21/09/17EHS en toch een smartphon
01/09/17WiFi vrije scholen (kaart
Artikelen
25/09/175G: Geschenk of infras
25/09/17Research Evidence That Ce
20/09/17IoT 5
20/09/17Harmonische vervorming
20/09/17Vitamin B17: The Greatest
19/09/17Burn-out (toename)
Berichten Nederland
28/09/17Nieuw boek: DE DRAADLOZE
21/09/17GGD Utrecht: een nieuw ge
20/09/17Ruimte in de ether voor 5
20/09/17De Impact-Academy en onze
18/09/17Vereniging tegen de Kwakz
Berichten België
01/07/17Verdubbeling burn-out in
26/06/17Voorstel van resolutie vo
Berichten Internationaal
21/09/17USA: Monterey County Proc
20/09/17USA: nieuwe 5G ellende: D
19/09/17USA: De jongeren van nu g
19/09/17USA: 5G opponents launch
Ervaringen | Appellen/oproepen
24/09/17Lichaamspanning en ele
18/09/17WiFi 2,4 GHz en 5 GHz; ee
18/09/17''Why I Don't Have a Mobi
Onderzoeken
20/09/17National Toxicology Progr
08/09/17Anxiety-like behavioural
07/09/17The mere presence of your
Veel gestelde vragen
13/05/17Vakantie? Witte zo
10/07/16Zeven veel gestelde vrage
Juridische informatie
19/09/17USA situatie: WOZ waarded
10/09/17Rechter: Staat moet lucht
31/08/17InPower Movement: Early r
Oproepen
29/11/17Raadsmarkt ZENDMASTEN &
11/11/17Cursus ‘Straling meten
29/09/17EHS regionale contactdage
Folders
10/06/17Brochures, 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