Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Elaine Marquardt Asad
Elaine Marquardt Asad
Visitors: 48
0
Bar #109630(FL)     License for 28 years
Orlando FL

Are you Elaine Marquardt Asad? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

Florida Laws: 120.569120.57163.3164163.3167163.3177163.3180163.3184163.3215163.3245163.3248322.27322.34393.0655393.067393.13402.305409.913435.04435.07812.035817.568

Florida Administrative Code: 65G-2.0041

16-004556GM  SEERINA FARRELL, ARIEL HORNER, ADELE SIMONS, MARJORIE HOLT, RONALD BROOKE, KELLY SEMRAD, AND CORNER LAKES ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. vs ORANGE COUNTY  (2016)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 11, 2016
Whether Orange County Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2015-2- P-FLUE-1 and 2015-2-A-5-1, adopted by Ordinance 2016-17 on July 12, 2016 (the Plan Amendments), are “in compliance,” as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2016).1/Petitioners proved beyond fair debate that the plan amendments were internally inconsistent with the comprehensive plan by allowing urban development in the rural service area.
15-007199EXE  ROSITA MARTIN vs AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES  (2015)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 17, 2015
The issues in this case are: (1) whether Petitioner has been rehabilitated from her disqualifying offense(s); and, if so, whether the intended action to deny Petitioner's exemption request pursuant to section 435.07(3), Florida Statutes (2015),1/ would constitute an abuse of discretion by Respondent.Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she had been rehabilitated from multiple property-related felonies and a domestic battery conviction, or that it would be an abuse of discretion to deny her exemption request.
15-003268  CHARLES MACK vs. AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES  (2015)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Oct. 21, 2015
The issues in this case are whether Petitioner has demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is rehabilitated from a disqualifying offense, and, if so, whether Respondent’s intended action to deny Petitioner’s application for an exemption from disqualification is an abuse of discretion.Petitioner proved rehabilitation from a 13-year disqualifying offense, and that he poses no danger to APD clients. APD's concerns were refuted at hearing.

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