Leon FL Lawyers | Garnett Wayne Chisenhall -- eLawyers

Garnett Wayne Chisenhall

Visitors: 70

Bar #184373(FL)

Tallahassee FL

Are you Garnett Wayne Chisenhall? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Florida Laws: 110.117, 112.011, 120.50, 120.52, 120.536, 120.54, 120.56, 120.569, 120.57, 120.595, 120.60, 120.68, 163.01, 186.504, 20.165, 20.41, 20.43, 202.14, 339.175, 409.901, 409.907, 409.913, 409.9131, 455.201, 455.225, 455.227, 455.2273, 455.32, 458.331, 471.033, 471.038, 475.001, 475.01, 475.17, 475.175, 475.180, 475.181, 475.25, 475.42, 484.002, 509.032, 509.049, 509.261, 509.292, 550.125, 551.102, 551.103, 551.122, 601.11, 718.103, 718.1255, 766.104, 766.206, 768.28, 823.01, 914.17

Florida Administrative Code: 61C-1.001, 61C-1.004, 61C-1.005, 61C-4.023

12-002812RP SABAL PALM CONDOMINIUMS OF PINE ISLAND RIDGE ASSOCIATION, INC., ON ITS OWN BEHALF, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OWNERS OF CONDOMINIUMS ONE THROUGH AND INCLUDING ELEVEN OF SABAL PALM CONDOMINIUMS OF PINE ISLAND RIDGE vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES (2012)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 16, 2012

The issues in this case are: 1) whether the abatement of certain requests for arbitration filed by the Petitioner constitutes a "rule" that must be adopted by the Respondent; and 2) whether Proposed Florida Administrative Code Rules 61B-45.0365, 61B-50.1265 and 61B-80.1165 are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.Petitioner failed to meet burden to establish standing.

12-002900RU ROBERT WOOD, P.E. vs THE FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION (2012)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 04, 2012

The issue for disposition in this case is whether Respondents have implemented agency statements that meet the definition of a rule, but which have not been adopted pursuant to section 120.54.Petitioner failed to prove that certain contract terms and other procedures relating to discipline of professional engineers were unadopted rules.

11-003985 DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS vs THE DOCK (2011)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 09, 2011

Whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty that should be imposed.Petitioner proved both critical and non-critical violations of chapter 509, Florida Statutes, and the Food Code. Recommend imposition of fine.

10-002675 DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS vs TATU (2010)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 17, 2010

At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints dated August 31, 2009, and April 19, 2010, and, if so, what penalty is warranted.The Division proved the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence, but could not use previous settlement agreements with Respondent to establish that Respondent was a repeat offender.

10-003295 DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS vs TATU (2010)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 15, 2010

10-002477 DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS vs NEW YORK DELI AND BAKERY (2010)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 10, 2010

Whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Restaurant failed to maintain cold foods at the proper temperature and to have a food manager present. Respondent should be fined $1000 and required to attend an educational program.

10-002431 DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS vs NEW SAN TELMO (2010)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 05, 2010

The issues in this disciplinary proceeding arise from Petitioner's allegation that Respondent, a licensed restaurant, violated several rules and a statutory provision governing food service establishments. If Petitioner proves one or more of the alleged violations, then it will be necessary to consider whether penalties should be imposed on Respondent.Clear and convincing evidence that Repondent committed three critical violations and one non-critical violation. Recommend $1,400 total fine as administrative penalty.

08-001717RU FLORIDA ASSOCIATION FOR CHILD CARE MANAGEMENT, INC. vs EARLY LEARNING COALITION OF DUVAL AND AGENCY FOR WORKFORCE INNOVATION (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 08, 2008

Whether the Early Learning Coalition of Duval (ELC of Duval) is a state agency as defined in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes, and whether the quality improvement rating system identified in Petitioner's Amended Petition is an agency statement that constitutes an unadopted rule in violation of Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.Petitioner`s challenge to Guiding Stars program implemented by Early Learning Coalition of Duval is dismissed because Petitioner did not demonstrate standing; ELC of Duval is not a state agency and Guiding Stars program is not a statement by AWI.

08-000490RU FRANCISCO VAZQUEZ, M.D. vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 25, 2008

The issue in this case is whether an interpretation of Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes, by the Board of Medicine is an agency statement which violates Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes.Petitioner proved that Board`s interpretation of Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes, constituted an unpromulgated rule.

08-001636BID VEOLIA TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC. vs COMMISSION FOR THE TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED (2008)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 04, 2008

The issue in this proceeding is whether the Respondent’s decision to award a community transportation provider contract to the Intervenor is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.The evidence showed that there was no responsive proposer to the RFP, and that the process was so impaired that all bids should be rejected and the RFP done anew.