Cassidy v. City of Bowling Green
| Decision Date | 31 May 1963 |
| Citation | 368 S.W.2d 318 |
| Parties | Paul CASSIDY et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF BOWLING GREEN, etc., et al., Appellees. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
E. R. Gregory, Bowling Green, for appellants.
G. D. Milliken, Jr., Bowling Green, for appellees.
CLAY, Commissioner.
This is a declaratory judgment action involving the constitutional validity of certain ordinances of the City of Bowling Green which established a municipally operated garbage disposal system. Particularly in question is the right of the City to require those who do not use the service to pay the regular monthly charge and the right of the City to cut off its water service to property owners or tenants whose garbage disposal bills are delinquent.
Because of a health problem in Bowling Green, arising from unregulated private garbage disposal, the City enacted a comprehensive ordinance making it unlawful to permit the accumulation of refuse in, about, or upon premises in the City, to deliver refuse to or from private property, to dispose of trash within the corporate limits, or to engage in the business of collection, removal or disposal of refuse therein.
In 1958, under statutory authority, the City created its own garbage collection and disposal system and bonds in the amount of $100,000 were issued to finance it. A service charge of $1.50 a month was established. Difficulties in connection with the collection of this service charge soon arose. Unpaid bills accumulated which threatened the financial soundness of the system. Thereupon the City enacted two more ordinances providing in substance: (1) the owners of property should be responsible for the service charge, even though premises were occupied by a tenant, and (2) city operated water and sewer services could be discontinued as a means of enforcing the payment of the garbage disposal service charge.
The plaintiffs represent two classes: (1) those who do not desire garbage disposal service, and (2) landlords who have the water meters in their names but whose premises are occupied by tenants who fail to pay the garbage disposal service charge.
The plaintiffs' first argument is that the City cannot require the owners or occupiers of property to use the garbage disposal service and therefore cannot charge them for it if it is not used. The evidence is convincing (if any were needed) that exclusive control of garbage disposal in Bowling Green by the City is an essential health measure in the public interest. The right of regulation is clearly within the police power of the City. It was shown that the health and welfare of the City residents would be preserved and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baker v. Bindner
...of the challenged statutes and ordinances can be determined without invoking federal jurisdiction. See Cassidy v. City of Bowling Green, 368 S.W.2d 318 (1963 Ky.); Goodwin v. City of Louisville, 309 Ky. 11, 215 S.W.2d 557 (1948); City of Harrodsburg v. Southern Ry. Co. in Kentucky, 278 Ky. ......
-
Laudermilk v. Governor Kirk Fordice, Civil Action No. 1:95cv161-D-D (N.D. Miss. 4/__/2001)
...imposition of civil penalties for waste spills not violative of substantive due process under Fifth Amendment); Cassidy v. City of Bowling Green, 368 S.W.2d 318, 320 (Ken. 1963) (same); City of Glendale v. Trondsen, 308 P.2d 1, 5 (Cal. 1957) (same). This court's present inquiry is not wheth......
-
Laudermilk v. Fordice
...imposition of civil penalties for waste spills not violative of substantive due process under Fifth Amendment); Cassidy v. City of Bowling Green, 368 S.W.2d 318, 320 (Ky. 1963) (same); City of Glendale v. Trondsen, 48 Cal.2d 93, 308 P.2d 1, 5 (1957) (same). This court's present inquiry is n......
-
Perez v. City of San Bruno
... ... "It is shown by this record," the court said in Cassidy v. City of Bowling Green (Ky. 1963) 368 S.W.2d 318, "that for public health and sanitation purposes ... ...