Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Adam Phillip Levinson
Adam Phillip Levinson
Visitors: 19
0
Bar #55344(FL)     License for 29 years
Plantation FL

Are you Adam Phillip Levinson? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

SC13-1315  Board of Trustees, Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund, etc. v. Curtis W. Lee  (2016)
Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Apr. 14, 2016
Supreme Court of Florida _ No. SC13-1315 _ BOARD OF TRUSTEES, JACKSONVILLE POLICE & FIRE PENSION FUND, etc., Petitioner, vs. CURTIS W. LEE, Respondent. [April 14, 2016] PARIENTE, J. In this case, we consider whether a prevailing party is entitled to an award of statutory attorney’s fees under Florida’s Public Records Act after the trial court determines in a civil action that the public agency violated the Public Records Act in failing to permit a public record to be inspected or copied. In Lee v..
11-002224F  DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT vs CITY OF WILTON MANORS  (2011)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 02, 2011
The issue for determination is whether DOAH has jurisdiction to entertain an agency's motion for attorney's fees brought pursuant to section 185.05(5), Florida Statutes, where the motion was filed with DOAH approximately two and one-half years after the agency's entry of a final order in the administrative proceeding for which the agency seeks an award of attorney's fees and costs.DOAH lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion for attorney's fees pursaunt to section 185.05(5), where the motion was filed with DOAH approximately 2 and one-half years after the final order in the administrative proceeding for which the award is sought.
08-004766  CITY OF WILTON MANORS, FLORIDA, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF WILTON MANORS PENSION PLAN FOR GENERAL EMPLOYEES AND POLICE vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES, DIVISION OF RETIREMENT  (2008)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 23, 2008
The issue in this case is whether a city, which sponsors a retirement plan covering its general employees and police officers, became ineligible to receive funds that the state distributes for the benefit of police pensions when, in 1999, the board of trustees for the retirement plan failed to hold an election affording the member police officers a chance to vote on whether a new plan for police officers only should be established.City's retirement plan was not rendered ineligible to receive premium tax distributions when the plan's board of trustees failed to hold an election, as required by statute, on whether a new plan should be established for police only.

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer