Monroe FL Administrative law, Financial markets and services -- eLawyers

Derek V. Howard

Visitors: 51

Bar #667641(FL) License for 21 years; Member in Good Standing

Key West FL

Are you Derek V. Howard? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

Florida Laws: 120.52, 120.57, 120.573, 120.68, 163.3184, 163.3194, 177.071, 35.22, 380.032, 380.05, 380.0552, 380.07, 380.08, 403.086, 403.412, 425.10, 454.11, 95.11

92-8065 United States v. Michael Edward Nichols (1992)

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Filed: Nov. 24, 1992 Citations: 977 F.2d 972

977 F.2d 972 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Edward NICHOLS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 92-8065 Summary Calendar. United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Nov. 24, 1992. Derek A. Howard (court-appointed), Howard & Kobelan, Austin, Tex., for defendant-appellant. Richard L. Durbin, Jr., James A. Hensarling, Asst. U.S. Attys., Ronald F. Ederer, U.S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of ..

04-13610 Neumont v. Florida (2010)

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: Jul. 02, 2010 Citations: 610 F.3d 1249

610 F.3d 1249 (2010) Elizabeth J. NEUMONT, Lawrence F. Scheiter, David J. Thomas, Susana Elena Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Monroe County, Florida, Defendants-Appellees. No. 04-13610. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. July 2, 2010. *1250 Harold E. Wolfe, Jr., Harold E. Wolfe, Jr., P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, Eric Grant, Sacramento, CA, for Appellants. Derek V. Howard, Morgan & Hendrick, Key West, FL..

04-13610 Neumont v. Florida (2006)

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: Jun. 14, 2006 Citations: 610 F.3d 1249

451 F.3d 1284 Elizabeth J. NEUMONT, Lawrence F. Scheiter, David J. Thomas, Susana Elena Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. State of FLORIDA, Monroe County, Florida, Defendants-Appellees. No. 04-13610. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. June 14, 2006. Harold E. Wolfe, Jr., Harold E. Wolfe, Jr., P.A., West Palm Beach, FL, Eric Grant, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants. Derek V. Howard, Morgan & Hendrick, Key West, FL,..

2D09-4438 Oatman v. State (2010)

District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Feb. 12, 2010 Citations: 26 So. 3d 589

26 So. 3d 589 (2010) OATMAN v. STATE. No. 2D09-4438. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. February 12, 2010. Decision Without Published Opinion Appeal dismissed.

17-006177GM PATRICIA J. EDWARDS AND HENRY A. OLYNGER, JR./TIC vs MONROE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 09, 2017

The issue is whether to approve the Petitioners’ application for a beneficial use determination (BUD) regarding their property on Ramrod Key, Florida, and if approved, to determine the type of relief that is appropriate.Petitioners' application for a beneficial use determination was denied because their as-applied takings claim was not ripe.

3D09-2325 Riggins v. DEPARTMENT. OF REVENUE EX REL. DOE (2009)

District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Nov. 19, 2009 Citations: 21 So. 3d 826

21 So. 3d 826 (2009) RIGGINS v. DEPARTMENT. OF REVENUE EX REL. DOE. No. 3D09-2325. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. November 19, 2009. Decision Without Published Opinion Appeal dismissed.

AR-82 Langley v. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COM'N (1984)

District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Jan. 20, 1984 Citations: 444 So. 2d 518

444 So. 2d 518 (1984) Carlin W. LANGLEY, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT APPEALS COMMISSION, Appellee. No. AR-82. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. January 20, 1984. Carlin W. Langley, pro se. Norman A. Blessing, Tallahassee, for appellee. SHIVERS, Judge. Langley appeals the order of the Unemployment Appeals Commission denying him unemployment compensation benefits. At issue is whether Langley's actions amount to misconduct so as to disqualify him from receiving such benefits. Langl..

13-004632GM SCOTT AND TONI BEAUCHAMP vs MONROE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (2013)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 25, 2013

The issue is whether to approve Petitioners' application for a beneficial use determination (BUD) on their property in Key Largo, Florida, and if approved, to determine the type of relief that is appropriate.Petitioners' application alleging that the County's enactment of a zoning ordinance constituted taking of property denied where statute of limitations had run, property still had some value, and Petitioners had not exhausted all administrative remedies.

07-005735GM SALVADOR GUTIERREZ, JR., ED LEWIS, LLC, C.O. JONES, JR., LLC; ET. AL. vs MONROE COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS (2007)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 19, 2007

The issue in this case is whether Monroe County Ordinance 035-2007, which amends the County's Beneficial Use Determination (BUD) procedures, is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC), which are in Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statutes (the Principles for Guiding Development).Ordinance detailing the beneficial use determination process was consistent with Principles for Guiding Development in the Florida Keys.

03-000150GM SIERRA CLUB AND JOHN S. WADE, JR. vs DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 17, 2003

Miami-Dade County's Krome Avenue is a two-lane, undivided highway. In October 2002, the Board of County Commissioners for Miami-Dade County (the Commission) passed Ordinance No. 02-198. The ordinance adopted an amendment composed of several parts to the County's Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP). Among the parts of the amendment were changes and additions to the CDMP initiated by an application ("Application No. 16") that relate to Krome Avenue (the "Plan Amendment.")1 Quite detailed, the Plan Amendment, in essence, makes changes that re-designate a substantial segment of Krome Avenue from 2 lanes to 4 lanes. The Plan Amendment's additions add all of Krome Avenue as a Major Route among the CDMP's designated evacuation routes in the year 2015, create new policies related to approval of use of land in the vicinity of Krome Avenue designated as a four-lane roadway and create a new policy related to planned capacity improvement to the roadway, including widening to four lanes. The issue in this growth management case is whether the Plan Amendment is "in compliance" as defined in the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act.The amendment to Miami Dade County`s Comprehensive Development Master Plan that allows Krome Avenue to be widened to four lanes is "in compliance."