welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  7. Gregory Thomas Stewart
Gregory Thomas Stewart
Gregory Thomas Stewart
Visitors: 110
0
Bar #203718(FL)     License for 50 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Gregory Thomas Stewart? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

Florida Laws: 110.181, 119.011, 120.52, 120.53, 120.54, 120.541, 120.542, 120.56, 120.569, 120.57, 120.595, 120.60, 120.68, 157.19, 161.041, 161.053, 161.055, 161.088, 161.091, 161.101, 161.131, 161.141, 161.142, 161.161, 161.201, 161.211, 161.212, 163.3161, 163.3164, 163.3177, 163.3180, 163.3184, 163.3187, 163.3194, 163.3202, 163.3245, 163.3248, 163.356, 163.360, 166.233, 20.255, 206.028, 216.011, 216.023, 253.002, 253.77, 267.061, 296.37, 320.27, 337.0261, 366.071, 373.175, 373.217, 373.223, 373.2295, 373.233, 373.246, 373.414, 378.406, 379.2431, 395.0163, 400.967, 403.201, 403.412, 409.25657, 440.385, 456.017, 513.045, 519.101, 57.105, 57.111, 61.11, 624.501, 627.7295, 704.06, 838.16, 895.04, 92.16, 957.07, 985.03, 985.037, 985.101, 985.185, 985.245, 985.25, 985.255, 985.335, 985.35, 985.43, 985.433, 985.439, 985.441, 985.4815, 985.64, 985.686

Florida Administrative Code: 18-21.004, 18-21.0051, 28-106.205, 28-106.217, 40C-2.301, 62-110.106, 62-4.242, 62-4.244, 62-610.650, 62B-36.002, 62B-41.002, 62B-41.003, 62B-41.005, 62B-41.007, 62B-41.008, 62B-49.002, 62B-49.003, 62B-49.005, 62B-49.013, 63G-1.002, 63G-1.004, 63G-1.008, 63G-1.012, 63G-1.013, 63G-1.014, 63G-1.015, 63G-1.016, 63G-1.017

6:03-BK-14519-ABB  In Re Sandifer  (2004)
United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida Filed: Dec. 22, 2004 Citations: 318 B.R. 609
318 B.R. 609 (2004) In re Richard L. SANDIFER, and Patricia L. Sandifer, Debtors. No. 6:03-BK-14519-ABB. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division. December 22, 2004. *610 Jonathan B. Alper, Heathrow, FL, for Debtor. Theodore D. Estes, Orlando, FL, for Pulte Home Corporation. ORDER ARTHUR B. BRISKMAN, Bankruptcy Judge. This matter came on Debtors Objections to Claim Numbers 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 (Doc. 22, 31, 32, 33, 34, 25, and 26 respectively) and eCast Settlement Corpor..
14-002799RP  COUNTY OF VOLUSIA vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 16, 2014
This is a rule challenge brought pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Statutes,1/ to the Proposed Rules of the Department of Juvenile Justice (“Department” or “DJJ”) 63G- 1.011, 63G-1.013, 63G-1.016, and 63G-1.017 (the “Proposed Rules”). The main issue in this case is whether the Proposed Rules are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that the Proposed Rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, section 985.686, Florida Statutes; are vague; and/or are arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners also argue that the Proposed Rules impose regulatory costs that could be addressed by the adoption of a less costly alternative. Finally, Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rules apply an invalid interpretation of the General Appropriations Act (“GAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2014-15 by interpreting the GAA as a modification to substantive law, contrary to the Constitution of the State of Florida.Some, but not all, of the challenged provisions of the Department of Juvenile Justice's proposed rules governing cost sharing between state and counties for secure juvenile detention are invalid.
14-002800RP  BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 16, 2014
This is a rule challenge brought pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Statutes,1/ to the Proposed Rules of the Department of Juvenile Justice (“Department” or “DJJ”) 63G- 1.011, 63G-1.013, 63G-1.016, and 63G-1.017 (the “Proposed Rules”). The main issue in this case is whether the Proposed Rules are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that the Proposed Rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, section 985.686, Florida Statutes; are vague; and/or are arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners also argue that the Proposed Rules impose regulatory costs that could be addressed by the adoption of a less costly alternative. Finally, Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rules apply an invalid interpretation of the General Appropriations Act (“GAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2014-15 by interpreting the GAA as a modification to substantive law, contrary to the Constitution of the State of Florida.Some, but not all, of the challenged provisions of the Department of Juvenile Justice's proposed rules governing cost sharing between state and counties for secure juvenile detention are invalid.
14-002801RP  FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES, ALACHUA COUNTY, BAY COUNTY, BREVARD COUNTY, CHARLOTTE COUNTY, COLLIER COUNTY, ESCAMBIA COUNTY, FLAGLER COUNTY, HERNANDO COUNTY, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, LAKE COUNTY, LEE COUNTY, LEON COUNTY, MANATEE COUNTY, ET AL. vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 16, 2014
This is a rule challenge brought pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Statutes,1/ to the Proposed Rules of the Department of Juvenile Justice (“Department” or “DJJ”) 63G- 1.011, 63G-1.013, 63G-1.016, and 63G-1.017 (the “Proposed Rules”). The main issue in this case is whether the Proposed Rules are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that the Proposed Rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, section 985.686, Florida Statutes; are vague; and/or are arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners also argue that the Proposed Rules impose regulatory costs that could be addressed by the adoption of a less costly alternative. Finally, Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rules apply an invalid interpretation of the General Appropriations Act (“GAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2014-15 by interpreting the GAA as a modification to substantive law, contrary to the Constitution of the State of Florida.Some, but not all, of the challenged provisions of the Department of Juvenile Justice's proposed rules governing cost sharing between state and counties for secure juvenile detention are invalid.
14-004512RP  ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 24, 2014
This is a rule challenge brought pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Statutes,1/ to the Proposed Rules of the Department of Juvenile Justice (“Department” or “DJJ”) 63G- 1.011, 63G-1.013, 63G-1.016, and 63G-1.017 (the “Proposed Rules”). The main issue in this case is whether the Proposed Rules are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that the Proposed Rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, section 985.686, Florida Statutes; are vague; and/or are arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners also argue that the Proposed Rules impose regulatory costs that could be addressed by the adoption of a less costly alternative. Finally, Petitioners assert that the Proposed Rules apply an invalid interpretation of the General Appropriations Act (“GAA”) for Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2014-15 by interpreting the GAA as a modification to substantive law, contrary to the Constitution of the State of Florida.Some, but not all, of the challenged provisions of the Department of Juvenile Justice's proposed rules governing cost sharing between state and counties for secure juvenile detention are invalid.
12-000891RX  OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND NASSAU COUNTY, FLORIDA vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2012)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 12, 2012
This is a rule challenge brought pursuant to section 120.56, Florida Statutes,1/ to existing Florida Administrative Code rules 63G-1.011, 63G-1.013, 63G-1.016, and 63G-1.017, (the "Challenged Rules"), adopted by the Department of Juvenile Justice (Department). At issue is whether some or all of the challenged rules constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined by section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes. The challengers allege the rules are invalid on three grounds: The rules modify the dividing line between county and state responsibility for the costs of secure juvenile detention from "final court disposition" to "commitment"; The rules fail to implement the requirement that the counties are only responsible for the "actual costs" of secure juvenile detention for the period of time prior to final court disposition; The rules inappropriately utilize an appropriations bill to modify the amount Petitioners are required to pay for predisposition costs under section 985.686, Florida Statutes.Department of Juvenile Justice's rules governing cost sharing between state and counties for secure juvenile detention are invalid.
12-002795F  OKALOOSA COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND NASSAU COUNTY, FLORIDA vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2012)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 15, 2012
The issue to be determined is the amount of attorneys’ fees and costs to be awarded to Petitioners pursuant to section 120.595(3), Florida Statutes (2012).Petitioners are entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs incurred in their challenge to an existing rule.
10-003166  BROWARD COUNTY vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 10, 2010
The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Department of Juvenile Justice (the "Department") assessed Petitioners and Intervenor counties for secure juvenile detention care for fiscal year 2008-2009 in a manner consistent with the provisions of section 985.686, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 63G-1.001 through 63G-1.009.1/Department of Juvenile Justice improperly calculated counties' contributions to Shared County/State Juvenile Detention Trust Fund for fiscal year 2008-2009.
10-001893  MIAMI-DADE COUNTY vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 12, 2010
The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Department of Juvenile Justice (the "Department") assessed Petitioners and Intervenor counties for secure juvenile detention care for fiscal year 2008-2009 in a manner consistent with the provisions of section 985.686, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 63G-1.001 through 63G-1.009.1/Department of Juvenile Justice improperly calculated counties' contributions to Shared County/State Juvenile Detention Trust Fund for fiscal year 2008-2009.
10-001894  SANTA ROSA COUNTY vs DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 12, 2010
The issue in these consolidated cases is whether the Department of Juvenile Justice (the "Department") assessed Petitioners and Intervenor counties for secure juvenile detention care for fiscal year 2008-2009 in a manner consistent with the provisions of section 985.686, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 63G-1.001 through 63G-1.009.1/Department of Juvenile Justice improperly calculated counties' contributions to Shared County/State Juvenile Detention Trust Fund for fiscal year 2008-2009.

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