Leon FL and Criminal defense Lawyers | Gary Lee Printy -- eLawyers

04-12486 United States v. Antonio Bernard Fields (2005)

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: May 16, 2005

408 F.3d 1356 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Bernard FIELDS, a.k.a. Tony Fields, Defendant-Appellant. No. 04-12486. Non-Argument Calendar. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. May 16, 2005. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Gary Lee Printy (Court-Appointed), Tallahassee, FL, for Defendant-Appellant. Michael Thomas Simpson, E. Bryan Wilson, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. Bef..

80354 Wilson v. ROSE PRINTING COMPANY INC. (1993)

Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Sep. 16, 1993

624 So. 2d 257 (1993) Robert A. WILSON, Petitioner, v. ROSE PRINTING COMPANY, INC., etc., Respondent. No. 80354. Supreme Court of Florida. September 16, 1993. W. Dexter Douglass and Gary Lee Printy of Douglass & Powell, Tallahassee, for petitioner. Robert M. Ervin and Robert M. Ervin, Jr. of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Ervin, Tallahassee, for respondent. SHAW, Justice. We have for review Rose Printing Co. v. Wilson, 602 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), based on conflict with Coastal Petroleum Co. ..

SC04-755 Maggio v. Fla. Dept. of Labor & Emp. SEC. (2005)

Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Mar. 24, 2005 Citations: 899 So. 2d 1074

899 So. 2d 1074 (2005) Janet MAGGIO, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, etc., Respondent. No. SC04-755. Supreme Court of Florida. March 24, 2005. *1075 Gary Lee Printy, Tallahassee, FL, for Petitioner. Nancy A. Chad and Jay P. Lechner of Zinober and McCrea, P.A., Tampa, FL, for Respondent. John C. Davis, Tallahassee, Florida on behalf of National Employment Lawyers Association, Florida Chapter; and F. Damon Kitchen and Jack R. Wallace of Constangy, Brooks and Smit..

18-000425 DENISE BURNS vs CITY OF GAINESVILLE (2018)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 24, 2018

Whether Petitioner was subject to an unlawful employment practice by Respondent in retaliation for participating in a protected activity, in violation of section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2016)1/; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Petitioner did not prove she was discriminated against in retaliation for having filed a prior charge of discrimination against her employer.

17-000879 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs ROYAL ROOFING AND RESTORATION, INC. (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 09, 2017

Whether Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc. (Respondent or Royal Roofing), failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Petitioner or Department), correctly calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for certain of its employees; Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty to be imposed against Respondent.

17-001558 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION vs ROYAL ROOFING AND RESTORATION, INC. (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 15, 2017

Whether Royal Roofing and Restoration, Inc. (Respondent or Royal Roofing), failed to secure workers’ compensation insurance coverage for its employees; and, if so, whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (Petitioner or Department), correctly calculated the penalty to be assessed against Respondent.Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to secure workers' compensation insurance coverage for certain of its employees; Petitioner did not correctly calculate the penalty to be imposed against Respondent.

Bankruptcy No. 91-10466-8P7, Adv. No. 92-50 In Re Bilzerian (1993)

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida Filed: Aug. 10, 1993 Citations: 158 B.R. 233

158 B.R. 233 (1993) In re Paul A. BILZERIAN, Debtor. Rick BRANNELLY, Plaintiff, v. Paul A. BILZERIAN, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 91-10466-8P7, Adv. No. 92-50. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. August 10, 1993. *234 William C. Ballard, Fisher & Sauls, P.A., St. Petersburg, FL, for plaintiff. Paul A. Bilzerian, pro se. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL ALEXANDER L. PASKAY, Chief Judge. WHEN THE boys of summer are ready to march on the field of dreams, the bo..

4D03-4143 Steve Owren, Inc. v. Connolly (2004)

District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Jul. 21, 2004 Citations: 877 So. 2d 918

877 So. 2d 918 (2004) STEVE OWREN, INC., d/b/a Treasure Coast Realty GMAC, Appellant, v. Lynne CONNOLLY, Appellee. No. 4D03-4143. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District. July 21, 2004. *919 Shelly Stirrat of Fox, Wackeen, Dungey, Seeley, Sweet, Beard & Sobel, L.L.P., Stuart, for appellant. Jack J. Aiello and Kip Davis of Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee. FARMER, C.J. The trial court refused to compel arbitration of a real estate agents suit against her..

09-005546 THOMAS BYRD vs LEWARE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (2009)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 13, 2009

The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of Petitioner's age or perceived disability in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2008).1Respondent did not discriminate against Petitioner, who has renal cancer. Petitioner did not disclose that medical condition until he voluntarily walked off the job.

02-003996 MARK J. ARMESTO vs COASTAL LUMBER COMPANY (2002)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 15, 2002

Whether Respondent has committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner on the basis of age discrimination.Age discrimination was not proven where qualifications of younger job candidate were superior. "No meeting of minds" meant no oral contract of continued employment at the will of the aged employee had been created.

Gary Lee Printy