CELLULAR SOUTH REAL
ESTATE, INC. d/b/a CELLULAR SOUTH v. CITY OF GERMANTOWN, (UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE, June 22, 2015).
The issues before
the Court were as follows: (a) whether the decision to deny Cellular South's
Application was not supported by "substantial evidence contained in a
written record," in accordance with 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii), and (b)
whether the Board's denial of Cellular South's application effectively
prohibited the provision of personal wireless services in violation of 47
U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).
The Court held that
although the residents provided their opinion as to the potential devaluation
of their property based on perceived negative impact on aesthetics, they did
not support their testimony with substantial evidence. The Court stated that the residents’
opinions were not based on objective evidence and instead amount to asserting:
"not in my backyard." Accordingly,
the Court found that the City's reasons for denial concerning aesthetics and
property values were not based on substantial evidence in the record. The Court also found that the City’s denial had
"the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
services" in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).