welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. George R Coe
George R Coe
George R Coe
Visitors: 36
0
Bar #298440(FL)     License for 24 years
Orlando FL

Are you George R Coe? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

17-2478  ZACHARY A. VANHORN v. STATE OF FLORIDA  (2018)
District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Feb. 08, 2018
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT ZACHARY A. VANHORN, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 4D17-2478 [February 8, 2018] Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Glenn D. Kelley, Judge; L.T. Case No. 2008-CF-016638-AMB. Zachary A. Vanhorn, Chipley, pro se. No appearance required for appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. DAMOORGIAN, CONNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until di..
98-1392  Gadlin v. Sybron International  (2000)
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: Aug. 11, 2000
222 F.3d 797 (10th Cir. 2000) PAULETTE GADLIN, as Personal Representative, and BERNELL RICCATONE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SYBRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a Wisconsin corporation; SYBRON DENTAL SPECIALTIES, INC., a Delaware corporation; KERR CORPORATION, doing business as Kerr Dental Corporation, a Delaware corporation; and METREX RESEARCH CORPORATION, a Wisconsin corporation, Defendants-Appellees. Nos. 98-1392 & 98-1399 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 11, 2000 APPE..
18-004208BID  PTV AMERICA, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION  (2018)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 10, 2018
Whether the Florida Department of Transportation’s (“Respondent” or “Department”) intended award of a contract for integrated corridor management modeling software to Aimsun, Inc. (“Intervenor” or “Aimsun”), is contrary to the Department’s governing statutes, rules, policies, or the solicitation specifications; and, if so, whether the decision was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioner did not prove that the Department's intended award of the contract for software to the Intervenor was contrary to competition, contrary to the RFP specifications, or arbitrary.

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