StopUMTS Logo
how to get rid of moles 
Zoeken
   
Voorlichting
16/08/18Wifi uitzetten: modems
10/08/18Netkaart hoogspanningslij
Artikelen
18/08/18Check if your mobile phon
18/08/18Eye Damage in the Microwa
17/08/18Monsanto moet 289 miljoen
17/08/18Ware WLAN ein medikament
16/08/18The full story on EMFs: R
11/08/185-10% Elektrosensiblen
Berichten Nederland
17/08/18De volksgezondheid is bli
15/08/18Huisarts ziet aantal stud
06/08/18’Buitengebied Hoogeveen
28/07/18OPEN BRIEF aan KPN en all
23/07/18Bijna 17.000 LTE-antennes
Berichten België
23/07/18Brusselse overheid tekent
16/06/18Scherpenheuvel-Zichem: Be
Berichten Internationaal
15/08/18USA: CDC Finds Brain, Liv
02/08/18Canada: First withdrawal
26/07/18ICNIRP’s public consult
17/07/18Frankrijk: PhoneGate scan
Ervaringen | Appellen/oproepen
29/07/18WMO aanvraag: ervaring
03/07/18Slimme meter ervaring
28/05/18Stralingsarme werkplek
Onderzoeken
18/08/18Exposure of Insects to Ra
04/08/18Occupational exposure to
29/07/18Oxidative stress in elect
Veel gestelde vragen
13/05/17Vakantie? Witte zo
10/07/16Zeven veel gestelde vrage
Juridische informatie
17/07/18De Omgevingswet en elektr
01/06/18Wetgeving hoogspanningsli
15/05/18Brit dad sues Nokia for u
Oproepen
13/08/18Oproep stralingsarme werk
23/07/18Oproep logeeradres Den Ha
29/06/18Tegenlicht wordt 30% geko
Folders
10/09/17Brochures, folders, websi
29/04/16USA: Meer dan 50 tips voo
Briefwisselingen | Archief: 2008, 2005
07/07/18E/mail naar alle raadsled
07/07/18E-mail naar de TV redacti
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