You are here

Board of Health of North Adams v. Mayor of North Adams

Case Name: 
Board of Health of North Adams v. Mayor of North Adams
Plaintiff: 
Board of Health of North Adams
Defendant: 
Mayor of North Adams
Citation: 

368 Mass. 554; 334 N.E.2d 34 (Mass. 1975)

Year: 
1975
Court Name: 
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
Abstract: 

Local board of health (BOH) brought an action in trial court against the mayor and city council of North Adams, Massachusetts, to enforce the BOH’s order (issued pursuant to state law upon recommendation of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health) to make funds available to study and implement fluoridation of the city’s water supply. The trial court found in favor of the BOH. Defendants appealed the trial court’s judgment, arguing that: (1) the order was procedurally defective because the published notice differed from the board’s order; (2) the city provided water to roughly 275 connections in neighboring communities that had not agreed to the proposed fluoridation; (3) the form of the question put before the voters (pursuant to state law) was misleading and deprived voters of due process; and (4) the BOH had no power to compel the city council to appropriate money. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts rejected all of defendants’ arguments and affirmed the trial court’s judgment, finding that (1) the published notice did not differ materially from the BOH’s order; (2) the water supplied to connections in neighboring communities was incidental; (3) the question put to the voters did not deprive them of due process; and (4) pursuant to state law, the local BOH, acting on state recommendation, can “order” fluoridation, including appropriation of funds to achieve that purpose.

Opinion Judges: 
Kaplan

Chapman v. City of Shreveport

Case Name: 
Chapman v. City of Shreveport
Plaintiff: 
Chapman
Defendant: 
City of Shreveport
Citation: 

225 La. 859; 74 So. 2d 142 (La. 1954)

Year: 
1954
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Louisiana
Abstract: 

Defendant City of Shreveport appeals the trial court’s preliminary injunction enjoining it from fluoridating the municipal water supply. The trial court determined that fluoridation of water is not a matter of public health, but a matter of private health and hygiene. The Supreme Court of Louisiana disagreed, holding that the fluoridation plan bore a reasonable relation to the general welfare and the general health of the community and was a valid exercise of the City’s power to promote these ideals.

Case Tags: 
State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Hawthorne

Attaya v. Town of Gonzales

Case Name: 
Attaya v. Town of Gonzales
Plaintiff: 
Henry E. Attaya, et al.
Defendant: 
Town of Gonzales, et al.
Citation: 

192 So. 2d 188 (La. Ct. App. 1966)

Year: 
1966
Court Name: 
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit
Abstract: 

Plaintiff brought action against the Town of Gonzales seeking a preliminary injunction prohibiting and restraining the Town from fluoridating the municipal water supply. Plaintiff argued that the Town’s ordinance adopting fluoridation was procedurally defective and that the ordinance also violated his constitutional rights because the action was secretive, arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument and upheld the Town’s ordinance.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Landry E

Graybeal v. McNevin

Case Name: 
Graybeal v. McNevin
Plaintiff: 
M.E. Graybeal et al.
Defendant: 
Christopher McNevin
Citation: 

439 S.W.2d 323 (Ky. Ct. Ap. 1969)

Year: 
1969
Court Name: 
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Abstract: 

Plaintiff claimed that the board of health and the water company could not introduce fluoridation into the water supply because in doing so it violated the regulation on dispensing of drugs and the right to freedom of religion under the 14th Amendment. Appellant Court found that the plaintiff did not meet his burden of proof and that fluoridating public water supplies did not violate the 14th Amendment.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Hill EP

Wilson v. City of Council Bluffs

Case Name: 
Wilson v. City of Council Bluffs
Plaintiff: 
C.L. Wilson
Defendant: 
City of Council Bluffs
Other Parties: 
Resident taxpayers and users of the public water supply of City of Council Bluffs
Citation: 

253 Iowa 162; 110 N.W.2d 569 (Iowa 1961)

Year: 
1961
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Iowa
Abstract: 

Plaintiffs brought an action against the City of Council Bluffs, Iowa, seeking to enjoin the City’s enforcement of an ordinance providing for fluoridation of the City’s municipal water supply. Plaintiffs argued that the City, as a municipal corporation, lacked statutory authority to enact the fluoridation ordinance. The court held that the City had implied authority to enact the ordinance pursuant to its statutory authority to preserve the health of its inhabitants.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Hays J

Teeter v. City of LaPorte

Case Name: 
Teeter v. City of LaPorte
Plaintiff: 
Teeter, et al.
Defendant: 
Municipal City of LaPorte, et al.
Citation: 

236 Ind. 146; 139 N.E.2d 158 (Ind. 1956)

Year: 
1956
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Indiana
Abstract: 

Appeal by appellants/plaintiffs below from a judgment for appellees/defendants below for failure to properly state claims sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin defendants from adding fluoride to water supplied by the municipal waterworks and to declare void an ordinance authorizing the addition of fluoride to the public water supply. Because the defendants did not file a motion to make the amended complaint more specific, the court considered the allegations in favor of the pleading. The court held that the complaint was not subject to a demurrer.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Emmert JA

Schuringa v. City of Chicago

Case Name: 
Schuringa v. City of Chicago
Plaintiff: 
Alice Schuringa
Defendant: 
City of Chicago
Citation: 

30 Ill. 2d 504; 198 N.E.2d 326 (Ill. 1964)

Year: 
1964
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Illinois
Abstract: 

Plaintiffs brought action against the City of Chicago, seeking to enjoin it from fluoridating the city’s water supply. Plaintiffs allege that the City’s actions in fluoridating the water supply were an unreasonable, arbitrary and unwarranted exercise of the police power, and that it infringed upon fundamental liberties protected by constitutional guarantees of due process of law. The court rejected plaintiff’s claims and held that the fluoridation program was a reasonable and proper exercise of the city’s police powers.

Case Tags: 
State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Daily

Pages

Subscribe to Fluoride Legislative User Information Database (FLUID) RSS