welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Chelsea Rae Shirley
Chelsea Rae Shirley
Chelsea Rae Shirley
Visitors: 66
0
Bar #112901(FL)     License for 10 years
Temple Terrace FL

Are you Chelsea Rae Shirley? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

  Hecht v. Wilson  (1932)
Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Dec. 15, 1932 Citations: 107 Fla. 421, 144 So. 886
The appellee, complainant below, filed her bill to foreclose a $10,500.00 mortgage upon certain lands *Page 422 described in her bill. The mortgagors were made parties defendant. But in addition to the mortgagors, there were others made parties defendant because (so it is alleged) they claimed some right, title or interest in the property which was alleged to be inferior and subordinate to the claim of foreclosure being advanced by the mortgagee. These added defendants were the Trustees of the In..
  Hecht v. Wilson  (1932)
Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Dec. 15, 1932 Citations: 107 Fla. 421, 144 So. 886
The appellee, complainant below, filed her bill to foreclose a $10,500.00 mortgage upon certain lands *Page 422 described in her bill. The mortgagors were made parties defendant. But in addition to the mortgagors, there were others made parties defendant because (so it is alleged) they claimed some right, title or interest in the property which was alleged to be inferior and subordinate to the claim of foreclosure being advanced by the mortgagee. These added defendants were the Trustees of the In..
  Mallett v. Tunnicliffe, as Liqdr.  (1932)
Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Dec. 21, 1932 Citations: 107 Fla. 688, 148 So. 196
This is our third consideration of this case. See Mallett vs. Tunnicliffe, et al., 102 Fla. 809 , 136 So. 346 , *Page 689 rehearing denied 102 Fla. 820 , 137 So. 238 . In the former appeal the order of the Chancellor sustaining a general demurrer to the bill of complaint was reversed because it showed equity as to the claim of preference in favor of Appellant in the sum of $8,150. Immediately after this claim accrued Mrs. Mallett had further correspondence with the State Bank of Orlando and Trust..
  Mallett v. Tunnicliffe, as Liqdr.  (1932)
Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Dec. 21, 1932 Citations: 107 Fla. 688, 148 So. 196
This is our third consideration of this case. See Mallett vs. Tunnicliffe, et al., 102 Fla. 809 , 136 So. 346 , *Page 689 rehearing denied 102 Fla. 820 , 137 So. 238 . In the former appeal the order of the Chancellor sustaining a general demurrer to the bill of complaint was reversed because it showed equity as to the claim of preference in favor of Appellant in the sum of $8,150. Immediately after this claim accrued Mrs. Mallett had further correspondence with the State Bank of Orlando and Trust..
  Page v. State Board of Medical Examiners  (1940)
Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Jan. 09, 1940 Citations: 141 Fla. 294, 193 So. 82
This is a case of original jurisdiction. The petitioner for a writ of prohibition shows that the State Board of Medical Examiners of Florida served notice on the plaintiff that they would proceed to hear charges filed against him for the revocation of his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. The basis for the proposed revocation is that the plaintiff was convicted of a *Page 295 felony on April 5, 1935, in the District Court of the United States in and for the Western District of..
  Page v. State Board of Medical Examiners  (1940)
Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Jan. 09, 1940 Citations: 141 Fla. 294, 193 So. 82
This is a case of original jurisdiction. The petitioner for a writ of prohibition shows that the State Board of Medical Examiners of Florida served notice on the plaintiff that they would proceed to hear charges filed against him for the revocation of his license to practice medicine in the State of Florida. The basis for the proposed revocation is that the plaintiff was convicted of a *Page 295 felony on April 5, 1935, in the District Court of the United States in and for the Western District of..
15-006268PL  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF DENTISTRY vs HAYDEE ARANDA, D.D.S.  (2015)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 09, 2015
The issue in this case is whether the Board of Dentistry should discipline the Respondent on charges set out in an Amended Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner.DOH charged dentist with deceptive, untrue and fraudulent representations in dental records and delegating non-delegable tasks. The charges were not proven by clear and convincing evidence.

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