You are here

Stroupe v. Eller

Case Name: 
Stroupe v. Eller
Plaintiff: 
Nell Stroupe, Frances K. McLaren, Pure Water Association
Defendant: 
Earl Eller, Frank Mulvaney, Clarence Morgan, Theodore Sumner, William Algary, Watler McRary, Ralph Morris, Weir, City Manager of Asheville, Asheville City Council, City of Asheville
Citation: 

262 N.C. 573; 138 S.E.2d 240 (N.C. 1964)

Year: 
1964
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Abstract: 

Plaintiffs, officials of the Asheville and Buncombe County Branch of the Pure Water Association, brought an action seeking to restrain defendant city officials from enforcing an ordinance passed by the Asheville City Council to fluoridate the public water supply. The parties stipulated that, seven years prior to the adoption of the city council’s ordinance, a county-wide election on the question whether the city should introduce fluorides into the public drinking water supply had resulted in a negative vote. Plaintiffs argued that the prior adverse vote, although advisory, should have prevented the council from passing the resolution until the electors were given another opportunity to vote on the question. The parties also conceded that the city’s charter provided for a referendum election upon proper petition before any ordinance became effective. The court remanded the case to the trial court for it to be dismissed for failure to state a claim, but instructed this to be done only after plaintiffs had time to call for and obtain a referendum as provided in the city charter.

Opinion Judges: 
Higgins J
Attach File: 

State ex rel. Whittington v. Strahm

Case Name: 
State ex rel. Whittington v. Strahm
Plaintiff: 
William H. Whittington, Gale E. Lord, William Paul Hunter, Jean McCone
Defendant: 
Margaret Strahm
Citation: 

374 S.W.2d 127 (Mo. 1963)

Year: 
1963
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Missouri
Abstract: 

Citizen brought a suit against the city to allow a referendum process. Court ruled in favor of the citizens.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Holman J

Readey v. St. Louis County Water Co.

Case Name: 
Readey v. St. Louis County Water Co.
Plaintiff: 
Readey, et al.
Defendant: 
St. Louis County Water Company, et al.
Citation: 

352 S.W.2d 622 (Mo. 1961)

Year: 
1961
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Missouri Division 1
Abstract: 

Plaintiffs brought an action against the City Clerk of Kansas City to take certain action in regard to a referendum petition which defendant contended was improper. The referendum petition sought to refer a Kansas City ordinance on the fluoridation of water to the electors. Plaintiffs argued that the ordinance was referable under the city’s charter provision, while the city took the position that only legislative ordinances were referable, and that the ordinance in question was administrative and not subject to a referendum petition. The Missouri Supreme Court deferred the decision of whether administrative ordinances are referable, holding that the ordinance was legislative in nature because it legally introduced for the first time the practice of fluoridating the city’s water supply. The court remanded the case with directions to the trial court to issue a peremptory writ of mandamus.

State: 

Minnesota State Board of Health v. City of Brainerd

Case Name: 
Minnesota State Board of Health v. City of Brainerd
Plaintiff: 
Minnesota Board of Health
Defendant: 
City of Brainerd
Other Parties: 
Dr. Warren R. Lawson, Mayor of Brainerd, City Council of Brainerd, Water and Light Board
Citation: 

308 Minn. 24; 241 N.W.2d 624 (Minn. 1976)

Year: 
1976
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Minnesota
Abstract: 

Appellant City of Brainerd, Minnesota, appealed the lower court’s peremptory writ of mandamus commanding the city to comply with a Minnesota state law requiring fluoridation of public water supplies. The city argued that the state law was an unconstitutional invasion of individual rights. The Supreme Court of Minnesota stated that to properly determine the constitutionality of fluoridation, it must consider: (1) the importance of the state's purpose for requiring fluoridation; (2) the nature and magnitude of the effect of forced fluoridation on the individual; (3) whether the state's purpose justified the intrusion of forced fluoridation; and (4) whether the means adopted by the state to accomplish its purpose was proper and reasonable. The court found that the state law satisfied this test and affirmed the trial court’s peremptory writ.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Laughlin M

Rogowski v. City of Detroit

Case Name: 
Rogowski v. City of Detroit
Plaintiff: 
Rogowski
Defendant: 
City of Detroit
Citation: 

374 Mich. 408; 132 N.W.2d 16 (Mich. 1965)

Year: 
1965
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Michigan
Abstract: 

Plaintiffs brought an action against the City of Detroit seeking to enjoin it from enforcing a water fluoridation ordinance and to have the ordinance declared illegal and void. Plaintiffs alleged that the city lacked authority under state law or its charter to issue the ordinance, and they went on to allege a long list of the harmful effects of fluoridation. Defendants moved for and were granted summary judgment in the court below on the grounds that plaintiffs’ complaint raised no genuine issue of material fact, but presented only expressions of opinions and questions of law for court determination. Plaintiffs appealed, and the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the decision below, holding that the court may take judicial notice of the common knowledge or belief, as evidenced by the public statements, affidavits and official actions presented by defendants, that fluoridation is beneficial to prevent dental caries and so improve public health.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Dethmers JK

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Costle

Case Name: 
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Costle
Plaintiff: 
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc.
Defendant: 
Douglas M. Costle, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
Citation: 

578 F.2d 337; 188 U.S. App.D.C. 95 (D.C. Cir. 1978)

Year: 
1978
Court Name: 
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit
Abstract: 

Plaintiff, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), challenged the adequacy of interim regulations promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) on the grounds that they failed to restrict levels of certain substances that may be harmful, including fluoride, and failed to require the adequate monitoring of other substances. The court (1) determined that the challenged actions concerning the regulation of inorganic substances, including fluoride, fell within the limits of discretion delegated to the agency under the SDWA, and (2) deferred final resolution of whether the EPA’s failure to control total organics in the interim regulations was responsive to the SDWA’s provisions and remanded the matter to the EPA so that it could consider new sources of data and advise the court of its determination as to whether it plans to propose amended interim regulations in light of newly acquired data.

Opinion Judges: 
Leventhal

New Haven Water Company v. City of New Haven

Case Name: 
New Haven Water Company v. City of New Haven
Plaintiff: 
New Haven Water Company
Defendant: 
City of New Haven
Other Parties: 
Town of Hamden
Citation: 

152 Conn. 563; 210 A.2d 449 (Conn. 1965)

Year: 
1965
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Abstract: 

Defendants appeal a judgment below in favor of plaintiffs, two privately owned public water utilities. Plaintiff furnished water to eleven municipalities, only two of which had enacted ordinances requiring fluoridation of the public water supply. Plaintiffs sought injunctions restraining the two municipalities from enforcing the fluoridation ordinances against them, arguing the ordinances were in conflict with Connecticut’s policy to reserve to itself the control of public service corporations serving more than one community. The court agreed and affirmed the lower court’s injunctive relief.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
King

Pages

Subscribe to Fluoride Legislative User Information Database (FLUID) RSS