welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  8. Gary Ray Rutledge
Gary Ray Rutledge
Gary Ray Rutledge
Visitors: 39
0
Bar #222674(FL)     License for 48 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Gary Ray Rutledge? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

19-10918  Marie Yolande Civil  (2011)
United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida Filed: Sep. 29, 2011 Citations: 460 B.R. 322
460 B.R. 322 (2011) In re Craig PIAZZA, Debtor. No. 10-40807-JKO. United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida, Fort Lauderdale Division. September 29, 2011. *323 Jeffrey Solomon, Esq., Hollywood, FL, for Debtor. Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration [ECF No. 47] JOHN K. OLSON, Bankruptcy Judge. The Debtor has filed a motion for reconsideration of this court's June 17, *324 2011 order dismissing this case. The motion was filed within 14 days after entry of the order and is accordingly governed..
101-62-M-Civ-EC  United States v. 119 CASES, MORE OF LESS, ETC.  (1963)
District Court, S.D. Florida Filed: Feb. 21, 1963 Citations: 231 F. Supp. 551
231 F. Supp. 551 (1963) UNITED STATES of America, Libelant, v. 119 CASES, MORE OR LESS, each containing 12 Bags of an Article Labeled in Part: * * * (Tampa Seizure): and 449 Cases, more or less, each containing 12 Bags of an Article Labeled in Part: * * * (Jacksonville Seizure): "NEW DEXTRA BRAND FORTIFIED CANE SUGAR * * *" No. 101-62-M-Civ-EC. United States District Court S. D. Florida. February 21, 1963. Herbert J. Miller, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., Thomas J. O'Leary, Atty. Dept...
08-005188RU  CITY OF MIAMI BEACH vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS  (2008)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 17, 2008
Whether the Respondent's statements regarding enforcement of the Florida Elevator Safety Code, as set forth in the Amended Petition Challenging Agency Statement Defined as a Rule filed November 21, 2008, constitute agency statements defined as rules that must be promulgated pursuant to Section 120.54(1), Florida Statutes (2008).1 Petitioner failed to prove challenged agency statements were unadopted rules. Statements explained agency`s statutory duty to protect public safety and confirmed that it was enforcing standards in building code incorporated by reference in existing rule.
04-002470RU  ST. PETERSBURG KENNEL CLUB, INC.; WEST FLAGLER ASSOCIATES, LTD.; ASSOCIATED OUTDOOR CLUBS, INC.; WASHINGTON COUNTY KENNEL CLUB, INC.; DAYTONA BEACH KENNEL CLUB, INC.; AND SOUTHWEST FLORIDA ENTERPRISES, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING  (2004)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 15, 2004
Whether Respondent’s statement contained in June 4, 2004, correspondence to the controller of the Daytona Beach Kennel Club, Inc., constitutes a rule of the agency which has not been adopted by the rule making procedures provided in Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Statutory references are to Florida Statutes, 2004, absent contrary indication.Petitioners fail to show that Respondent`s statement constituted a non-adopted agency rule in contravention of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes. Petition is dismissed.
95-006180  CALDER RACE COURSE, INC., AND TROPICAL PARK, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING  (1995)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 19, 1995
Whether Petitioners are entitled to exceed the twenty percent cap on simulcasts.Amendment to statutes and agency`s policy change mandate approval of petitioners` requests for full card simulcasting.
96-003860RP  WEST FLAGLER ASSOCIATES, LTD., D/B/A FLAGLER GREYHOUND TRACK; HARTMAN TYNER, INC., D/B/A HOLLYWOOD GREYHOUND TRACK; ST. PETERSBURG KENNEL CLUB, D/B/A DERBY LANE; AND DAYTONA BEACH KENNEL CLUB, INC., D/B/A DAYTONA BEACH KENNEL CLUB vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING  (1996)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 20, 1996
Whether proposed rules 61D-11.001(6), (7), (10), (12), (14) and (17); 61D- 11.005(9), (10) and (11); 61D-11.007(1), (2) and (8); 61D-11.008(2), (5), and (7); 61D-11.009(2); 61D-11.012(5); 61D-11.017(4); and BPR Forms 16-002, 16-004, 16-005, and 16-007 constitute invalid delegations of legislative authority.Petitioners rules for implementation of cardroom regulation exceed Agency's statutory authority, with minor exceptions.
93-006549RX  JOHN R. WITMER vs DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING  (1993)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 16, 1993
The issues in these cases are whether the following rules promulgated by the Respondent, the Department of Business Regulation [now the Department of Business and Professional Regulation], Division of Pari-mutuel Wagering, are valid exercises of delegated legislative authority: F.A.C. Rules 61D-1.002(18) [formerly 7E-16.002(18)] and 61D-1.006 [formerly 7E-16.006]; and emergency rules 7ERR92-2(18) and 7EER92-6.Parts of pari-mutuel law sunset. ERs under remnants moot when permanents adopted, except ER says Pet. violated. Sub of new law valid tech changes.

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