Free Web space and hosting from 1hwy.com
Search the Web

CASE LAW: U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City Council Of The City Of Virginia Beach, No. 97-2389 (4th Circuit September 1, 1998) Virgina Beach Wins Important Tower Siting Decision! The Fourth Circuit has issued an important decision upholding local authority to control the placement of cellular towers. Among other things, the decision, issued in a case involving the City of Virginia Beach and AT&T Wireless PCS and several other wireless providers, concludes : 1.cities need not issue detailed written decisions in order to support a decision to deny construction of a tower; 2.a decision to deny a request for permission to construct a tower can be based on the complaints of ordinary citizens that the tower will damage the neighborhood; 3.denial of a tower siting request is not inherently discriminatory; and 4.provisions of the Telecommunications Act which state that a city may not enact laws prohibiting the provision of cellular services do not prevent a city from denying individual applications for approval of a siting request. More information on this decision here. Alternate case posting. PETERSBURG CELLULAR PARTNERSHIP, d/b/a 360o Communications Company, Plaintiff-Appellee; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 99-1055 Intervenor; v. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF NOTTOWAY COUNTY, Defendant-Appellant. PER CURIAM: After Nottoway County, Virginia, denied 360 o Communications Company a conditional use permit to erect a 199-foot wireless communications tower, the district court issued a writ of mandamus directing the County's Board of Supervisors to issue the permit. The district court reversed the County's decision after applying the "substantial evidence" standard imposed on the County's zoning procedures by § 704(a) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. On appeal, Nottoway County contends that its decision to deny the permit was indeed supported by "substantial evidence" within the meaning of the Telecommunications Act and that, in any event, the requirement that it apply a federal standard in making its zoning decisions violates the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. [Case at Findlaw] U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Town of Amherst (NH) v. Omnipoint Communications Boston, MA - 3/30/99: The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit vacated the District Court judgment and found in favor of the Town of Amherst. Cell Tower in Maine Defeated Judge says Falmouth has right to reject tower proposal. [story]

U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Sprint Spectrum v. Willoth New York, NY - 5/24/99: The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms the District Court judgment upholding the Town of Ontario (NY) local zoning board denial of Sprint's request to build three towers.

The Medina Experience Kirk R. Wines, Esq. - One attorney's experience fighting cellular providers, with some interesting links. "Kirk Wines has been the Medina City Attorney for over twenty-five years. As such, he was unwittingly drawn into his first cell tower disputes. The first case filed under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was against the City of Medina, Washington for passing a moratorium on cell sites within the city. Kirk successfully defended that action and a subsequent series of actions filed in Federal Court by Sprint Spectrum alleging that the city was obligated to allow Sprint to erect a 100 foot monopole tower with a ring of panel antennas at the top within the midst of a densely developed neighborhood." -- from CellSlayer For more information on this particular case, see The Medina Experience in Federal Court.

MORE CASE STUDIES No effort has been made to assemble all of the cases citing the Telecommunications Act relating to wireless antenna facilities. Most of the decisions have come out of federal district courts throughout the country. A few of the most interesting ones follow...here. More recent court decisions are referenced here.

IMPORTANT NEWS ON PETITION TO F.C.C. TO PRE-EMPT THE DECISION OF THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Public Comments Posted on FCC Web Pages (Click Here) More Information here on Lookout Mountain - Colorado

Sutro Tower, San Francisco Board of Supervisors Resolution 992082 [Sutro Tower Health and Safety Task Force] Tempers Flare At Panel Meeting Over Sutro Tower: Structure's lobbyist thrown out

 

Lloyd's Underwriter Refuses Health Risk Concern about the safety of mobile phones has prompted a leading Lloyd's underwriter to refuse to insure phone manufacturers against the risk of damage to users' health. The move comes amid mounting concern about the industry's influence on research into the long-term effects of using a mobile. The London market provides insurance for everything from aircraft to footballers' legs. But fears that mobile phones will be linked to illnesses such as cancer and Alzheimer’s disease have prompted John Fenn, of underwriting group Stirling, to refuse to cover manufacturers against the risk of being sued if mobiles turn out to cause long-term damage. READ the full London Observer story here. From: The Observer, London, UK Insurers Balk at Risks of Phones By Sarah Ryle Consumer Affairs Correspondent Sunday April 11, 1999 Source and Link: WaveGuide | EMF/RFR Bioeffects & Public Policy

The following articles/documents can be accessed under the Law/Legal section heading at EMFguru --- German Government Statement: 21 Jun, 00 --- Convention for the Protection of Human Rights: 20 Jun, 00 --- Cell Tower in Maine Defeated: 25 May, 00 --- Colorado Resolution Against FCC Preemption (Carney): 29 Apr, 00 --- Colorado Legislature's Resolution Against FCC: 27 Apr, 00 --- AHA is Appealing Fed Court Ruling: 25 Mar, 00 --- Another Fed Court Ruling on 1996 Telecom Act: 20 Mar, 00 http://laws.findlaw.com/4th/991055P.html --- U.K. Bill is Offered to Reverse Loose Cellphone Mast Siting Rules: 9 Mar, 00 --- U.K. Conservatives' Cell Phone Masts statement: 3 Mar, 00 --- The Virginia Beach Decision: 9 Feb, 00 http://www.millervaneaton.com/hot_intro.html