You are here

Illinois Pure Water Committee, Inc. v. Yoder

Case Name: 
Illinois Pure Water Committee, Inc. v. Yoder
Plaintiff: 
Illinois Pure Water Committee, Inc.
Defendant: 
Dr. Franklin Yoder, Director of Department of Public Health
Citation: 

6 Ill. App.3d 659; 286 N.E.2d 155 (Ill. App. Ct. 1972)

Year: 
1972
Court Name: 
Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District
Abstract: 

Illinois Court of Appeals reversed trial court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs were the Illinois Pure Water Committee, Inc. (IPWC); an officer of IPWC; mayor and chief executive officer of the Village of Pesotum, Illinois; and a Christian Scientist and resident of Highland Park, Illinois. After alleging that fluorine was being injected into the water system pursuant to Illinois state law and describing the various dangers fluorine posed, the complaint alleged that (1) the statute was unconstitutional because it denied plaintiffs due process of law and placed their lives and health in jeopardy without due process of law by forcing the plaintiffs to consume the tainted water; (2) the statute was so vague and uncertain and lacked requisite safeguards as to render it unconstitutional; and (3) that the statute was an unconstitutional delegation of authority. Taking the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, the court of appeals determined that the plaintiffs (except the mayor) did allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Moran GJ

Illinois Pure Water Committee, Inc. v. Director of Public Health

Case Name: 
Illinois Pure Water Committee, Inc. v. Director of Public Health
Plaintiff: 
Illinois Pure Water Committee, Inc.
Defendant: 
Director of Public Health
Citation: 

104 Ill.2d 243; 83 Ill. Dec. 568; 470 N.E.2d 988 (Ill. 1984)

Year: 
1984
Court Name: 
Supreme Court of Illinois
Abstract: 

Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that an Illinois state statute providing for the fluoridation of public water supplies was an unreasonable exercise of the police power and was an unconstitutional violation of a fundamental right. Plaintiffs also sought an order enjoining the water company from introducing fluoride into the public water supply and enjoining the Illinois Department of Public Health and the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing the statute. The court held that no fundamental right was involved and that the fluoridation statute was a reasonable exercise of the state’s police power.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Goldenhersh

Quiles v. City of Boynton Beach

Case Name: 
Quiles v. City of Boynton Beach
Plaintiff: 
Jesus F. Quiles
Defendant: 
City of Boynton Beach
Other Parties: 
Gerald Broening
Citation: 

802 So.2d 397 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)

Year: 
2001
Court Name: 
Court of Appeals of Florida, Fourth District
Abstract: 

Plaintiff filed action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the City of Boynton Beach, alleging the city’s fluoridation of its public water supply violated his right to refuse medical treatment under the Florida and United States constitutions. The court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal, finding that the city was acting within its legal and constitutional limitations, and that fluoridation of water does not constitute a medical procedure because plaintiff is not compelled to drink the fluoridated water.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Gross

City Commission of City of Fort Pierce v. State ex rel. Altenhoff

Case Name: 
City Commission of City of Fort Pierce v. State ex rel. Altenhoff
Plaintiff: 
City Commission of City of Fort Pierce
Defendant: 
State ex rel. Altenhoff
Citation: 

143 So.2d 879 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1962)

Year: 
1962
Court Name: 
District Court of Appeals of Florida, Second District
Abstract: 

On behalf of the state of Florida, relator sought to restrain the City Commission of the City of Fort Pierce from implementing a municipal ordinance directing the City Manager to fluoridate the city’s water supply. Plaintiff alleged that the city did not have the power to fluoridate the public water supply. The Florida District Court of Appeals rejected the state’s argument and held that the city did have the power to fluoridate the water under the broad powers granted to it in its charter.

State: 
Opinion Judges: 
Allen

Highlights in North American Litigation During the Twentieth Century on Artificial Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies

Authors: 
Graham JR, Morin PJ
Article Title: 
Highlights in North American Litigation During the Twentieth Century on Artificial Fluoridation of Public Water Supplies
Year: 
1999
Volume: 
14
Number: 
2
Pages: 
195-248
Commentary: 

The science is inaccurate and based on non-peer reviewed science that cannot be replicated, in addition there seems to be a lack of knowledge and understanding regarding the fluoridation. If you enjoy reading articles adamantly opposing fluoridation, complete with conspiracy theories and a strong negative bias toward fluoridation this is it. In my opinion the article would be more credible had it been less adversarial.

Looking Back at Fluoridation, Risk: Issues in Health and Safety

Authors: 
Mazure A
Article Title: 
Looking Back at Fluoridation, Risk: Issues in Health and Safety
Year: 
2001
Commentary: 

As the title states this article looks at the history of fluoridation from a broad policy level discussing health affects such as cancer and then moves into current issues.

Fluoridation at Fifty: What have we learned

Authors: 
Pratt E, Rawson RD, Rubin M
Article Title: 
Fluoridation at Fifty: What have we learned
Year: 
2002
Volume: 
30
Number: 
3 supplemental
Pages: 
117-121
Abstract: 

The question posed by the title of this article encompasses more than just the law and science applied to fluoridation. A review of the history and present status of fluoridation policy development and implementation makes it quickly apparent that the lessons learned are applicable to a wide range of public health policy and that the public health community needs to be very concerned about the status and trends of legal precedent. Indeed, in the context of recent U. S. Supreme Court decisions, the need for a comprehensive and coordinated effort to educate the public, legislators, and jurists about the safety and efficacy of community water fluoridation is clear. Two fundamental issues are at the core of this article: (1) the use of science in formulating and defending public health policy, and (2) how to connect scientific fact with the legal process in connection with the actual circumstances regarding a community's health status. The opening section of this article presents an analysis of fluoridation's great success in preventing dental caries over the past 50 years, along with a discussion of current data scientifically demonstrating that fluoride is safe when properly utilized. A second section provides an overview of one state's legislative experience in mandating fluoridation and the political challenges encountered. A final section discusses the legal issues associated with fluoridation, including the bases of legal challenges to public laws mandating it.

Commentary: 

This article provides an overview of the benefits of fluoridated water in preventing dental caries followed by one state's political challenges in mandating water fluoridation and the legal challenges associated with community water fluoridation.

Pages

Subscribe to Fluoride Legislative User Information Database (FLUID) RSS