You are here

Alkire v. Cashman

Case Name: 
Alkire v. Cashman
Plaintiff: 
Jack Alkire
Defendant: 
Dr. John W. Cashman
Citation: 

350 F. Supp. 360 (S.D. Ohio 1972)

Year: 
1972
Court Name: 
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division
Abstract: 

The State of Ohio adopted legislation requiring that all public waterworks systems serving more than 5,000 persons fluoridate their water supplies by a certain deadline. After the deadline had passed, the City of Columbus adopted two ordinances that provided for fluoridation of the municipal water supply. Plaintiffs brought an action in federal district court against the city, arguing that the state legislation the ordinances sought to comply with was unconstitutional because it: (1) distinguished unfairly between large and small water suppliers, in violation of equal protection and (2) infringed on the contractual rights of their respective communities. The city defended on the grounds that its fluoridation ordinances were promulgated independent of the state law mandate, and that under the doctrine of home rule, the city had the right to fluoridate its water supplies. The court upheld the city’s ordinances, holding that they were valid under either plaintiffs’ or defendants’ theories. The court further rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the distinction between small and large water suppliers was an equal protection violation, holding that there was no violation of contractual rights because political checks, in the form of a referendum, were available to citizens who wanted to remove themselves from the legislation’s coverage.

Case Tags: 
State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Rubin CB
Attach File: 

Yiamouyiannis v. Consumers Union of the United States

Case Name: 
Yiamouyiannis v. Consumers Union of the United States
Plaintiff: 
John Yiamouyiannis
Defendant: 
Consumers Union of the United States, Inc.
Citation: 

619 F.2d 932 (2d Cir. 1980)

Year: 
1980
Court Name: 
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
Abstract: 

Although this case is not a fluoridation challenge, it contains a good discussion of the scientific community’s attitudes towards fluoridation. Plaintiff, a renowned opponent of fluoridation, brought a libel suit against defendant for two articles defendant published, attacking as misleading and erroneous the claims made by certain individuals (including plaintiff) that fluoridation causes cancer, birth defects, and other ills. The court found that plaintiff was a public figure subject to the “actual malice” standard. The court upheld the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, holding that plaintiff failed to show the defendant’s statements were published with actual malice.

State: 

Village of Tully v. Harris

Case Name: 
Village of Tully v. Harris
Plaintiff: 
Village of Tully et al.
Defendant: 
William A. Harris, Onondaga County Commissioner of Health
Citation: 

119 A.D.2d 7; 504 N.Y.S.2d 591 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Year: 
1986
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Abstract: 

Plaintiffs, the Village of Tully and the Village of Baldwinsville in New York, appealed the trial court’s judgments dismissing their petitions to annul orders of the Commissioner of Health of Onondaga County, New York, requiring fluoridation of their public water supplies. The orders stated that, before adding fluoride compounds, a public water supplier must make written application to and receive approval from the New York Commissioner of Health. They directed each village to follow certain procedures set out in the Onondaga County Sanitary Code. Plaintiffs argued that the county’s charter, which pertained to the creation and administration of the county health district and department of health as well as the county sanitary code, was inconsistent with the New York Public Health Law and thus was null and void. The court found that, although the county did not adhere strictly to the Public Health Law’s guidelines for the establishment and organization of county health districts, the county’s charter and sanitary code were proper and superseded the Public Health Law under the Home Rule provision of the New York Constitution. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ claims.

Case Tags: 
State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Schnepp

Hacker v. Common Council of City of Ithaca

Case Name: 
Hacker v. Common Council of City of Ithaca
Plaintiff: 
Andrew Hacker
Defendant: 
Common Council of the City of Ithaca et al.
Citation: 

49 Misc. 2d 69; 266 N.Y.S.2d 927 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1966)

Year: 
1966
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of New York, Tompkins County
Abstract: 

Plaintiff brought an action seeking to invalidate a city charter amendment approved by a majority of voters to prohibit fluoridation of the City of Ithaca’s water supply. The amendment was submitted to the electorate after the Common Council of the City of Ithaca adopted a resolution to fluoridate the city’s water. Plaintiff argued that the submission of the proposed law to the electorate was not in truth a charter amendment, but an attempt by the electorate to nullify resolutions of the Common Council and to legislate in a field within which the electorate was not authorized to assert control directly. Defendants argued, and the court agreed that, under the Municipal Home Rule Law, the local law prohibiting fluoridation was a valid amendment to the Ithaca City Charter. The court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Zeller HA

Turner v. Barnhardt

Case Name: 
Turner v. Barnhardt
Plaintiff: 
Harold L. Turner
Defendant: 
Charles E. Barnhart
Other Parties: 
New Mexico Citizens for Fluoridation
Citation: 

83 N.M. 759; 497 P.2d 970 (N.M. 1972)

Year: 
1972
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of New Mexico
Abstract: 

Plaintiffs brought an action seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction enjoining the City of Albuquerque from fluoridating the public water supply after city voters adopted an ordinance in favor of fluoridation. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appealed on the grounds that: (1) there were material issues of fact; (2) the City improperly held a general election at the same time as a municipal election; and (3) the full text of the ordinance was not placed on the ballot. The court rejected all of plaintiffs’ arguments and affirmed the trial court’s decision.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
McManus

Young v. Board of Health of Borough of Somerville

Case Name: 
Young v. Board of Health of Borough of Somerville
Plaintiff: 
Raymond A. Young et al.
Defendant: 
The Board of Health of the Borough of Somerville, et al.
Citation: 

61 N.J. 76; 293 A.2d 164 (N.J. 1972)

Year: 
1972
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of New Jersey
Abstract: 

Plaintiffs brought an action against a group of local boards of health seeking injunctive relief from recently adopted resolutions requesting fluoridation of the public water supply and an adjudication that the resolutions were invalid. Plaintiffs argued that the local boards of health lacked authority to adopt the resolutions requesting fluoridation and were bound to act by ordinance rather than by resolution. The court rejected both arguments and affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants

State: 

Balke v. City of Manchester

Case Name: 
Balke v. City of Manchester
Plaintiff: 
June Balke
Defendant: 
City of Manchester
Citation: 

150 N.H. 69; 834 A.2d 306 (N.H. 2003)

Year: 
2003
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Abstract: 

New Hampshire state law provided that fluorine shall not be introduced into any water system until the municipality using the water system has held a public hearing as to the introduction of fluorine into the public water supply and the voters of the municipality have approved such action. Defendant City of Manchester operated the Manchester Water Works (MWW), which provided water service to customers in the city as well as outside the city limits. Following a public hearing conducted by the city pursuant to state law, a vote was held in favor of adding fluoride to the water supply. No similar public hearings or referendums were held in any of the other towns serviced by MWW, although MWW did notify town officials of its plans to fluoridate the water. Plaintiffs filed a petition for a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and damages in the lower court, arguing that the city had violated state law by fluoridating its water supply prior to conducting public hearings and obtaining voter approval in each municipality that MWW served. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that the plain language of the statute required a referendum vote in every municipality in which a resident received water from the water system. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment ordering the city to cease fluoridation by a certain date unless a legislative remedy was enacted or the surrounding towns voted to approve fluoridation.

Case Tags: 
Opinion Judges: 
Nadeau J
Attach File: 

Pages

Subscribe to Fluoride Legislative User Information Database (FLUID) RSS