Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Carly J Schrader
Carly J Schrader
Visitors: 70
0
Bar #14675(FL)     License for 20 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Carly J Schrader? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

17-005082  MOORE POND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; AND OX BOTTOM MANOR COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. vs GOLDEN OAK LAND GROUP, LLC; AND LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 18, 2017
The issue to be determined in this case is whether the Leon County Development Review Committee’s preliminary conditional approval of a site and development plan for the Brookside Village Residential Subdivision is consistent with the Tallahassee-Leon County 2030 Comprehensive Plan (“Comp Plan”) and the Leon County Land Development Code (“Code”).Petitioners failed to prove the proposed residential development was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan of Land Development Code provisions that require compatibility.
17-002678FC  MARION COUNTY, POLK COUNTY, AND SEMINOLE COUNTY vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 10, 2017
Determination, after remand, of an appropriate award for reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Petitioners in consolidated appeals.Final Order after Remand awarding appellants their attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the appeal pursuant to the parties' stipulation.
2D03-332  Williamson v. State  (2003)
District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Apr. 11, 2003 Citations: 841 So. 2d 694
841 So. 2d 694 (2003) William Ray WILLIAMSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 2D03-332. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. April 11, 2003. DAVIS, Judge. William Ray Williamson appeals the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We affirm without discussion as to his second and third claims, but we reverse and remand as to his first claim. On March 11, 1994, a jury convicted Williamson of gr..
5D08-1679  Cotto v. State  (2009)
District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Apr. 21, 2009 Citations: 8 So. 3d 368
8 So. 3d 368 (2009) COTTO v. STATE. No. 5D08-1679. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. April 21, 2009. Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
2D09-3244  Shirazi-Gharouni v. Gharouni  (2009)
District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Aug. 31, 2009 Citations: 14 So. 3d 1013
14 So. 3d 1013 (2009) SHIRAZI-GHAROUNI v. GHAROUNI. No. 2D09-3244. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. August 31, 2009. Decision without published opinion Appeal dismissed.
5D09-3811  Turner v. State  (2010)
District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Jan. 15, 2010 Citations: 26 So. 3d 597
26 So. 3d 597 (2010) TURNER v. STATE. No. 5D09-3811. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District. January 15, 2010. Decision Without Published Opinion Affirmed.
14-002799RP  COUNTY OF VOLUSIA vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 16, 2014
This is a rule challenge brought pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Statutes,1/ to the Proposed Rules of the Department of Juvenile Justice (“Department” or “DJJ”) 63G- 1.011, 63G-1.013, 63G-1.016, and 63G-1.017 (the “Proposed Rules”). The main issue in this case is whether the Proposed Rules are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that the Proposed Rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, section 985.686, Florida Statutes; are vague; and/or are arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners also argue that the Proposed Rules impose regulatory costs that could be addressed by the adoption of a less costly alternative. Finally, Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rules apply an invalid interpretation of the General Appropriations Act (“GAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2014-15 by interpreting the GAA as a modification to substantive law, contrary to the Constitution of the State of Florida.Some, but not all, of the challenged provisions of the Department of Juvenile Justice's proposed rules governing cost sharing between state and counties for secure juvenile detention are invalid.
14-002800RP  BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 16, 2014
This is a rule challenge brought pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Statutes,1/ to the Proposed Rules of the Department of Juvenile Justice (“Department” or “DJJ”) 63G- 1.011, 63G-1.013, 63G-1.016, and 63G-1.017 (the “Proposed Rules”). The main issue in this case is whether the Proposed Rules are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that the Proposed Rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, section 985.686, Florida Statutes; are vague; and/or are arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners also argue that the Proposed Rules impose regulatory costs that could be addressed by the adoption of a less costly alternative. Finally, Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rules apply an invalid interpretation of the General Appropriations Act (“GAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2014-15 by interpreting the GAA as a modification to substantive law, contrary to the Constitution of the State of Florida.Some, but not all, of the challenged provisions of the Department of Juvenile Justice's proposed rules governing cost sharing between state and counties for secure juvenile detention are invalid.
14-002801RP  FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, ALACHUA COUNTY, BAY COUNTY, BREVARD COUNTY, CHARLOTTE COUNTY, COLLIER COUNTY, ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLAGLER COUNTY, HERNANDO COUNTY, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, LAKE COUNTY, LEE COUNTY, LEON COUNTY, MANATEE COUNTY, ET AL. vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 16, 2014
This is a rule challenge brought pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Statutes,1/ to the Proposed Rules of the Department of Juvenile Justice (“Department” or “DJJ”) 63G- 1.011, 63G-1.013, 63G-1.016, and 63G-1.017 (the “Proposed Rules”). The main issue in this case is whether the Proposed Rules are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that the Proposed Rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, section 985.686, Florida Statutes; are vague; and/or are arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners also argue that the Proposed Rules impose regulatory costs that could be addressed by the adoption of a less costly alternative. Finally, Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rules apply an invalid interpretation of the General Appropriations Act (“GAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2014-15 by interpreting the GAA as a modification to substantive law, contrary to the Constitution of the State of Florida.Some, but not all, of the challenged provisions of the Department of Juvenile Justice's proposed rules governing cost sharing between state and counties for secure juvenile detention are invalid.
14-004512RP  ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 24, 2014
This is a rule challenge brought pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Statutes,1/ to the Proposed Rules of the Department of Juvenile Justice (“Department” or “DJJ”) 63G- 1.011, 63G-1.013, 63G-1.016, and 63G-1.017 (the “Proposed Rules”). The main issue in this case is whether the Proposed Rules are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that the Proposed Rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, section 985.686, Florida Statutes; are vague; and/or are arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners also argue that the Proposed Rules impose regulatory costs that could be addressed by the adoption of a less costly alternative. Finally, Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rules apply an invalid interpretation of the General Appropriations Act (“GAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2014-15 by interpreting the GAA as a modification to substantive law, contrary to the Constitution of the State of Florida.Some, but not all, of the challenged provisions of the Department of Juvenile Justice's proposed rules governing cost sharing between state and counties for secure juvenile detention are invalid.

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