welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  8. Frederick Jacob Lotterhos, III
Frederick Jacob Lotterhos, III
Frederick Jacob Lotterhos, III
Visitors: 49
0
Bar #284610(FL)     License for 46 years; Member in Good Standing
Jacksonville FL

Are you Frederick Jacob Lotterhos, III? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

03-004083  GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND BUDDY FOSTER CHEVROLET, INC. vs ROGER WHITLEY CHEVROLET, INC.  (2003)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 04, 2003
The issue in this case is whether Section 320.642(2)(a), Florida Statutes, permits the relocation by Petitioner General Motors Corporation (GM) of the dealership of Petitioner Buddy Foster Chevrolet, Inc. (Foster), from its present location to a new proposed location for the sale of certain line-makes of Chevrolet vehicles. In order to make that determination, the question arises as to whether Respondent Roger Whitley Chevrolet, Inc. (University), and Respondent Gordon Stewart Chevrolet, Inc. (Stewart), are already providing adequate representation for sale of the subject Chevrolet vehicles in the community or territory of the proposed Foster relocation point.Petitioners failed to show that Respondents were not providing adequate representation. Recommend that the application to relocate dealership be denied.
03-004084  GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND BUDDY FOSTER CHEVROLET, INC. vs GORDON STEWART CHEVROLET, INC.  (2003)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 04, 2003
The issue in this case is whether Section 320.642(2)(a), Florida Statutes, permits the relocation by Petitioner General Motors Corporation (GM) of the dealership of Petitioner Buddy Foster Chevrolet, Inc. (Foster), from its present location to a new proposed location for the sale of certain line-makes of Chevrolet vehicles. In order to make that determination, the question arises as to whether Respondent Roger Whitley Chevrolet, Inc. (University), and Respondent Gordon Stewart Chevrolet, Inc. (Stewart), are already providing adequate representation for sale of the subject Chevrolet vehicles in the community or territory of the proposed Foster relocation point.Petitioners failed to show that Respondents were not providing adequate representation. Application to relocate dealership denied.
01-004495  REGAL LAKELAND vs GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND BIG OAKS BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC.  (2001)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 19, 2001
The issues for determination are whether, as General Motors Corporation contends in its notice letter to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (the "Department"), the proposed relocation of Big Oaks Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. ("Big Oaks") is exempt from the requirements of Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, pursuant to Subsection 320.642(5)(a), which provides that relocations within two miles of its existing dealership location are not to be considered an additional motor vehicle dealership, or whether, as Petitioners contend, the relocation is to a site more than two miles from the existing dealership, the proposed relocation constitutes an additional dealership, and the proposed action may only be taken after fulfilling the requirements of Section 320.642, Florida Statutes.Proper method to measure within two mile exemption for relocation: issue of first impression--no rule. Administrative Law Judge selected encircled radius to encircled radius as appropriate.
01-004650  CANNON AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC. vs GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION AND BIG OAKS BUICK PONTIAC GMC, INC.  (2001)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 05, 2001
The issues for determination are whether, as General Motors Corporation contends in its notice letter to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (the "Department"), the proposed relocation of Big Oaks Buick Pontiac GMC, Inc. ("Big Oaks") is exempt from the requirements of Section 320.642, Florida Statutes, pursuant to Subsection 320.642(5)(a), which provides that relocations within two miles of its existing dealership location are not to be considered an additional motor vehicle dealership, or whether, as Petitioners contend, the relocation is to a site more than two miles from the existing dealership, the proposed relocation constitutes an additional dealership, and the proposed action may only be taken after fulfilling the requirements of Section 320.642, Florida Statutes.Proper method to measure within two mile exemption for relocation: issue of first impression--no rule. Administrative Law Judge selected encircled radius to encircled radius as appropriate.

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