Leon FL Lawyers | George Steven Pfeiffer -- eLawyers

84-3039 (1985)

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: Jun. 04, 1985 Citations: 761 F.2d 1517

761 F.2d 1517 GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a New York Corporation, Plaintiff- Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. John A. MARLAR, a Florida citizen and Marlar Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Defendants-Appellants, Cross-Appellees. No. 84-3039. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. June 4, 1985. Daniel S. Dearing, Dearing & Smith, Tallahassee, Fla., for defendants-appellants, defendants-cross-appellees. Jean Laramore, Laramore & Clark, P.A., George Steven Pfeiffe..

84-3039 General Motors Acceptance Corporation, Etc., Cross v. John A. Marlar, Etc., and Marlar Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, Inc., Etc., Defendants- Cross-Appellees (1985)

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: Oct. 25, 1985 Citations: 774 F.2d 1042

774 F.2d 1042 GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, etc., Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross- Appellant, v. John A. MARLAR, etc., and Marlar Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, Inc., etc., Defendants- Appellants, Cross-Appellees. No. 84-3039. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Oct. 25, 1985. Daniel S. Dearing, Dearing & Smith, Tallahassee, Fla., for defendants-appellants, cross-appellees. Jean Laramore, Laramore & Clark, P.A., George Steven Pfeiffer, Joseph C. Jacobs, Melissa Fletcher Allaman, Ervins, V..

02-002505RX FLORIDA POOL AND SPA ASSOCIATION, INC. vs FLORIDA BUILDING COMMISSION (2002)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 17, 2002

Count I: Whether Rule 424.2.17.1.9 of the Florida Building, Code, through an amendment of Rule 9B-3.047, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority because it: (a) enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the statute; (b) exceeds the statutory rule-making authority of the Florida Building Commission; (c) is arbitrary and capricious; and/or (d) is not based on competent substantial evidence. Count II: Whether this Rule was adopted contrary to, and in violation of, the Florida Building Commission's stated rule- making procedure due to a prior settlement. Count III: Whether, with regard to this Rule, the Florida Building Commission failed to adopt a less costly regulatory alternative; and Count IV: Whether Chapter 515, Florida Statutes, is unconstitutional.1/There cannot be a valid delegation of legislative authority to support a rule amendment where the Legislature has clearly determined that the rule amendment should be superceded by previous rule language.

03-000131BC FLORIDA HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; VOLUSIA HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION, INC.; AND STAN SHIRAH vs CITY OF DAYTONA BEACH, CITY OF SOUTH DAYTONA, AND CITY OF PORT ORANGE (2003)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 15, 2003

The issue is whether the local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code adopted by the City of Port Orange and the City of South Daytona comply with the requirements of Section 553.73(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2001).The local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code adopted by Respondents failed to comply with the requirements of Section 553.73(4)(b), Florida Statutes.

01-002858BID PUBLIC CONSULTING GROUP, INC. vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION (2001)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 19, 2001

The issue is whether Respondent's tentative award of a contract to Intervenor for Medicaid third party liability services was consistent with the applicable statutes, rule, and policies "that govern the award of government contracts," and the request for proposals.Petitioner failed to prove that scoring was clearly erroneous; that evaluators were unqualified; and that agency`s determination that Intervenor`s proposal was responsive was clearly erroneous.

90-008072EPP INDIANTOWN COGENERATION vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION (1990)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 21, 1990

The issue for determination is whether the proposed Indiantown Cogeneration, L.P. (ICL) Project site is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances of Martin County and Okeechobee County, Florida. See Section 403.508(2), Florida Statutes. No party to the proceeding disputes that the site is consistent and in compliance with the plans and ordinances in effect on December 21, 1990, when the application was filed.Power Plant Siting Act applicant stipulated to conditions of certification with all parties and presented prima facie case. Certification granted with conditions.

89-006636EPP FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (LAUDERDALE REPOWERING PROJECT) vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION (1989)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 01, 1989

Whether the proposed site of the Lauderdale Repowering Project is consistent and in compliance with existing land use plans and zoning ordinances.Certification of repowering project recommended with conditions.'

George Steven Pfeiffer