You are here

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA

Case Name: 
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA
Plaintiff: 
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
Defendant: 
Environmental Protection Agency and EPA Administrator Lee M. Thomas
Other Parties: 
South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
Citation: 

812 F.2d 721; 259 U.S. App. D.C. 5 (D.C. Cir. 1987)

Year: 
1987
Court Name: 
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit
Abstract: 

Plaintiffs Natural Resources Defense Council and South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control challenged an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule establishing a recommended maximum contaminant level under the Safe Drinking Water Act for fluoride in drinking water. The court upheld the EPA’s rule as within the bounds of the agency’s permissible discretion.

Opinion Judges: 
Ginsburg RB, Bork, Buckley

Hattie v. Thomas

Case Name: 
Hattie v. Thomas
Plaintiff: 
Mary A. Hattie, et al.
Defendant: 
Lee M. Thomas, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
Citation: 

22 ERC (BNA) 1728 (N.D. Ohio 1985)

Year: 
1985
Court Name: 
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division
Abstract: 

Plaintiffs brought an action against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in federal district court seeking to have the EPA bring an action against the State of Ohio to stop the fluoridation of the Canton municipal water supply. Plaintiff challenged an Ohio state law that provided for fluoridation of public water supplies, arguing that it violated the Safe Drinking Water Act. Defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court granted defendants’ motion, holding that plaintiffs’ failed to allege a violation by the EPA of some non-discretionary duty, and that the Ohio statute in question did not violate the SDWA or any regulation promulgated under the EPA.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Bell SH

Miller v. City of Evansville

Case Name: 
Miller v. City of Evansville
Plaintiff: 
Miller et al.
Defendant: 
City of Evansville et al.
Citation: 

247 Ind. 563; 219 N.E.2d 900 (Ind. 1966)

Year: 
1966
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Indiana
Abstract: 

Plaintiffs brought an action against the City of Evansville seeking an injunction to restrain the City from fluoridating the City’s water supply. The parties stipulated that there was not, nor had there ever been, a city ordinance in the City authorizing or directing the City to fluoridate the public water supply. The court found that only the common council of the City possessed the power, under appropriate proceedings, to enact an ordinance providing for the fluoridation of the city water. The court held that the stipulation entered into showed conclusively that the city council had not exercised that power and that no authority existed to fluoridate the water supply.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Jackson JM

Welcome to FLUID

What is FLUID? The Fluoride Legislative User Information Database is a comprehensive database containing historical information on legal cases decided by U.S. courts and current information on federal and state policies regarding community water fluoridation. Local policies that affect significant U.S. population bases are being added over time. Why was FLUID created?

Scott v. Board of Election Commissioners of Newton

Case Name: 
Scott v. Board of Election Commissioners of Newton
Plaintiff: 
Wellington F. Scott
Defendant: 
Board of Election Commissioners of Newton
Other Parties: 
Harold M. Band
Citation: 

346 Mass. 388; 193 N.E.2d 262 (Mass. 1963)

Year: 
1963
Court Name: 
Supreme Judicial Court Massachusetts
Abstract: 

Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the Newton, Massachusetts Board of Election Commissioners (Board) from counting and tabulating votes on whether fluoridation of the public water supply should be discontinued. Plaintiffs argued that the measure was improperly on the ballot because the public water supply did not contain fluorine until, at the earliest, two days after the required number of signatures was filed with the Board. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts rejected plaintiffs’ argument, finding no intent on the part of the state to draw a fundamental distinction between “water supply is being fluoridated” and “it has been voted to fluoridate such supply.” The court also noted that the ascertainment of the will of the voters was informative only, and that the actual determination of whether to fluoridate was in the sole power of the appropriate municipal officers. The court affirmed the lower court’s decree and allowed the Board to count and tabulate the vote.

Opinion Judges: 
Wilkins CJ

Jacobson v. Massachusetts

Case Name: 
Jacobson v. Massachusetts
Plaintiff: 
Jacobson
Defendant: 
Massachusetts
Citation: 

197 U.S. 11 (U.S. 1905)

Year: 
1905
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of the United States
Abstract: 

Massachusetts state law provided that if a municipality determined that it was necessary for the public health or safety, it could require and enforce the vaccination and revaccination of all inhabitants over the age of twenty-one. Pursuant to the statute, the City of Cambridge adopted a regulation requiring its citizens to be vaccinated for small pox. Defendant refused the vaccine and was criminally charged. Defendant appealed the jury’s determination that he was guilty, arguing that his liberty was invaded when the state subjected him criminal punishment for refusing to submit to vaccination; that a compulsory vaccination law was unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive; and that the execution of such a law against one who objects to vaccination was an assault upon his person. The United States Supreme Court rejected defendant’s arguments, holding that the liberty secured by the United States Constitution does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. The Court found that the statute at issue was a valid exercise of the state’s police power to regulate the health and safety of its citizens.

Case Tags: 

Gorman v. City of New Bedford

Case Name: 
Gorman v. City of New Bedford
Plaintiff: 
Ruth Gorman
Defendant: 
City of New Bedford
Other Parties: 
Citizens of New Bedford, Massachusetts Dental Society
Citation: 

383 Mass. 57; 417 N.E.2d 433 (Mass. 1981)

Year: 
1981
Court Name: 
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Abstract: 

Pursuant to the requirements of the Home Rule Amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution, defendant city sought and obtained legislative authorization to conduct a vote during its municipal elections on the question of whether the city’s water supply should continue to be fluoridated. The election was held, and the vote was against continued fluoridation. Plaintiffs (1) challenged the lawfulness of the legislation, arguing that the Home Rule Amendment did not authorize special acts relating to local matters; (2) argued that the special legislation at issue suspended fluoridation laws in violation of the Massachusetts Constitution; and (3) claimed that the special legislation was an improper exemption of identifiable individuals from the requirements of state laws concerning fluoridation, in violation of the Massachusetts Constitution. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts rejected all of plaintiffs’ claims and upheld the City’s special legislation discontinuing fluoridation of the water supply.

Case Tags: 
Opinion Judges: 
Wilkins JJ

Pages

Subscribe to Fluoride Legislative User Information Database (FLUID) RSS