welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Erik Russel Fenniman
Erik Russel Fenniman
Erik Russel Fenniman
Visitors: 63
0
Bar #673641(FL)     License for 22 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Erik Russel Fenniman? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

07-001020  AMEC CIVIL, LLC vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2007)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 01, 2007
Whether the Department of Transportation (Petitioner) may declare AMEC CIVIL, LLC, (Respondent) non-responsible for 90 days and ineligible to bid on Department contracts during that period, based upon Respondent's alleged failure to timely submit contract documents and comply with contract requirements on Contract Numbers 21349 and 21350 (Financial Project Numbers 209600-1-52-01 and 213290-1-52-01).Petitioner, who failed to comply with specification 9-9, was determined to be "non-responsible," for 90 days.
04-001764  CROWN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., AND TROPICAL LANDHOLDINGS vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2004)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 28, 2004
The issue in these causes is whether denial of Petitioners' outdoor advertising sign site permit applications by Respondent were correctly determined under Subsection 479.111(2), Florida Statutes (2003), on the basis that the sign sites were unzoned commercial/industrial areas; and on the basis that within attending factual circumstances, the sign site did not qualify as unzoned commercial/industrial areas as defined in Subsection 479.01(23), Florida Statutes (2003).Petitioner Outdoor Advertising Inc.`s sign permits applications were appropriately denied by Respondent, as the sites were not zoned for commercial or industrial activity.
04-001765  CROWN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., AND TROPICAL LANDHOLDINGS vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2004)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 28, 2004
The issue in these causes is whether denial of Petitioners' outdoor advertising sign site permit applications by Respondent were correctly determined under Subsection 479.111(2), Florida Statutes (2003), on the basis that the sign sites were unzoned commercial/industrial areas; and on the basis that within attending factual circumstances, the sign site did not qualify as unzoned commercial/industrial areas as defined in Subsection 479.01(23), Florida Statutes (2003).Petitioner Outdoor Advertising Inc.`s sign permits applications were appropriately denied by Respondent, as the sites were not zoned for commercial or industrial activity.
04-001766  CROWN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC., AND TROPICAL LANDHOLDINGS vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2004)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 28, 2004
The issue in these causes is whether denial of Petitioners' outdoor advertising sign site permit applications by Respondent were correctly determined under Subsection 479.111(2), Florida Statutes (2003), on the basis that the sign sites were unzoned commercial/industrial areas; and on the basis that within attending factual circumstances, the sign site did not qualify as unzoned commercial/industrial areas as defined in Subsection 479.01(23), Florida Statutes (2003).Petitioner Outdoor Advertising Inc.`s sign permits applications were appropriately denied by Respondent, as the sites were not zoned for commercial or industrial activity.

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