Leon FL Appeals and Government Lawyers | Enoch Jonathan Whit -- eLawyers

SC13-411 Citrus County Hospital Board, etc. v. Citrus Memorial Health Foundation, Inc., etc. (2014)

Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Nov. 13, 2014

Supreme Court of Florida _ No. SC13-411 _ CITRUS COUNTY HOSPITAL BOARD, etc., et al., Appellants, vs. CITRUS MEMORIAL HEALTH FOUNDATION, INC., etc., Appellee. [November 13, 2014] POLSTON, J. This case is before the Court on appeal from the First District Court of Appeal’s decision in Citrus Memorial Health Foundation, Inc. v. Citrus County Hospital Board, 108 So. 3d 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013), which held that the special law enacted at chapter 2011-256, Laws of Florida, impairs the Foundation’s cont..

Adversary Nos. 94-86, 94-554 In Re Richardson (2007)

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida Filed: Aug. 02, 2007 Citations: 373 B.R. 186

373 B.R. 186 (2007) In re Theodore Carlton RICHARDSON, Debtor. Ron Peterson, as Trustee of the Jacqueline N. Overton Trust, Plaintiff, v. Theodore Carlton Richardson, Defendant. Adversary Nos. 94-86, 94-554. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. August 2, 2007. David P. Rankin, Law Offices of David P. Rankin, Lutz, FL, for Plaintiff. Daniel A Medeiros, Daniel A. Medeiros, P.A., Sarasota, FL, for Defendant. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT RICHARDSON'S N..

Bankruptcy No. 86-853, Adv. No. 86-303 Matter of Whilden (1986)

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida Filed: Oct. 03, 1986 Citations: 67 B.R. 40

67 B.R. 40 (1986) In the Matter of Stephen Hennington WHILDEN, Debtor(s). Harold W. BURLINGAME, Plaintiff, v. Stephen Hennington WHILDEN, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 86-853, Adv. No. 86-303. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. October 3, 1986. John G. Ghostbear, Tulsa, Okl., Daniel J. Herman, Largo, Fla., for plaintiff. Michael A. Tewell, Tampa, Fla., for defendant. ORDER ON MOTION TO TRANSFER ADVERSARY PROCEEDING AND ON MOTION OF WITHDRAWAL OF REFERENCE OF ADVERSARY PROCE..

03-004251 PALM BEACH IMPORTS, INC., D/B/A BRAMAN MOTORCARS vs DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 12, 2003

The issue in this case is whether Vista Motors' new BMW dealership at 4401 West Sample Road, Coconut Creek, resulted from a relocation and reopening of Vista Motors' former BMW dealership at 700 North Federal Highway, Pompano Beach, in compliance with Section 320.642(5)(b), Florida Statutes, which grants certain "reopening" dealers an exemption from protest.A new BMW dealership resulted from the relocation and reopening of the former BMW dealership, within 12 months after closure of the former dealership at a location meeting statutory requirements. The new dealership cannot be considered subject to protest.

03-004257 POMPANO IMPORTS, INC., D/B/A VISTA MOTORS vs DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 13, 2003

The issue in this case is whether Petitioners' notice of intent to establish a supplemental motor vehicle dealership was effective to commence the statutory protest period, which must be completed as a necessary condition of licensure.Petitioner`s notice of intent to establish a supplemental motor vehicle dealership was premature and hence ineffective to commence the statutory protest period, which must be completed as a necessary condition of licensure.

03-004250 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC vs DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 12, 2003

The issue in this case is whether Petitioners' notice of intent to establish a supplemental motor vehicle dealership was effective to commence the statutory protest period, which must be completed as a necessary condition of licensure.Petitioner`s notice of intent to establish a supplemental motor vehicle dealership was premature and hence ineffective to commence the statutory protest period, which must be completed as a necessary condition of licensure.

97-001627RU JOSEPH H. CHANCY vs DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES (1997)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 03, 1997

Whether proposed rules of Respondent constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.Four of the proposed rules have adequate support from implemented statute. Remaining policy violates provisions of Section 120.52(8)(d), Florida Statutes.

95-005382BID AMDAHL CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES (1995)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 08, 1995

Is Petitioner Amdahl Corporation (Amdahl) entitled to be awarded the computer contract under RFP 046-95REBID because the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles' (DHSMV's) decision to award this contract to Unisys Corporation (Unisys) was arbitrary, capricious, illegal or fraudulent?Where apparent low bidder and protestant each lost points on material but not base-line responsiveness issues; point calculation could be by Hearing Officer; no rebid.

95-002648BID AMDAHL CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES (1995)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 24, 1995

Whether the protest herein is premature under the terms of the Request for Proposals and Section 120.53(5) F.S.Where Request For Proposal specifications provided for three phases of bid evaluation; a protest filed after tabulation of only two phases was premature.

91-001879BID BANKNOTE CORPORATION OF AMERICA, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES (1991)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 22, 1991

The issue in this case is whether Banknote Corporation Of America, Inc.'s challenge to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicle's proposed award of a contract to American Banknote Company pursuant to Invitation to Bid No. 84- 91 should be upheld. Necessarily involved in the resolution of this issue is a determination of whether the bid proposal submitted by Banknote Corporation of America should be rejected as non-responsive.Low bid for title certificates properly disqualified as nonresp.; bid specs not timely challenged; one resp. bid rcvd; no oblig. to award to sole bid

Enoch Jonathan Whitney