FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _ No. 1D19-920 _ LEO PRICE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. Mark W. Moseley, Judge. October 14, 2019 PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. LEWIS, MAKAR, and JAY, JJ., concur. _ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _ Leo Price, pro se, Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Benjamin Hoffman, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahasse..

933 So. 2d 417 (2006) In re AMENDMENTS TO The RULES REGULATING THE FLORIDA BAR. No. SC04-2246. Supreme Court of Florida. March 23, 2006. As Revised on Denial of Rehearing June 29, 2006. John F. Harkness, Jr., Executive Director, Tallahassee, FL, Alan B. Bookman, President, Pensacola, FL, Adele I. Stone, Chair, Special Committee to Review the ABA Model Rules 2002, Fort Lauderdale, FL, John A. Boggs, Director, Legal Division, Mary Ellen Bateman, Director, Legal Division DEUP, Elizabeth Clark Tarber..

388 So. 2d 15 (1980) Thomas WATSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 79-1858. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. September 3, 1980. Rehearing Denied October 8, 1980. *16 Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Joseph Atterbury, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Max Rudmann, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM. Watson, defendant in the trial court, appeals the revocation of his pr..

The issue in this case is whether just cause exists for termination of the Petitioner’s employment at the Manatee County School Board.Evidence of misconduct warrants termination even if legally-actionable sexual harassment was not established.

The issue in this case is whether the comprehensive plan is not in compliance for the reasons set forth by Petitioner.Standing establish by construction of respondent's failure to respond adequately to request for dismissal. Designation of 10 units per acre on island inconsistent

This case is an appeal under Section 380.07, Florida Statutes, by Estech General Chemicals Corporation (Estech), to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (Adjudicatory Commission) of a development order issued by the Manatee County Board of County Commissioners. On August 16, 1979, the Manatee County Board of County Commissioners adopted a resolution denying Estech's Application for Development Approval for a Development of Regional Impact (D.R.I. number 10), denying Estech's Application for Approval of a Special Exception (SE-1120), and denying Estech's Application for Approval of a Master Mining and Reclamation Plan. On September 24, 1979, Estech appealed to the Adjudicatory Commission pursuant to Chapter 380.07, Florida Statutes. The appeal was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned to a hearing officer. The Department of Community Affairs and the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council joined the appeal as intervening parties. Sarasota County was granted "provisional status" as an intervenor. The Hearing Officer conducted de novo hearings, over Petitioner's objection, on March 17-21 and May 19-23, 1980. On July 31, 1950, a Recommended Order issued containing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and conditions for development approval. The Hearing Officer recommended that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission grant Estech permission to develop its property in Manatee County in the manner provided in the Applications filed with the County subject to various Conditions for Development Approval which were attached to the Recommended Order as Exhibit B.Petitioner should be granted permit to develop phosphate mining operation as long as the conditions in the order are met.