Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Harry Nathan Jacobs
Harry Nathan Jacobs
Visitors: 30
0
Bar #192796(FL)     License for 49 years; Member in Good Standing
Altamonte Springs FL

Are you Harry Nathan Jacobs? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

97-003776BID  IT CORPORATION vs SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT  (1997)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 15, 1997
This is a bid protest proceeding to determine which of several competing bidders should be awarded contracts to perform work related to the Everglades restoration activities of the Respondent. The primary issues litigated at the hearing related to the sufficiency of the bids of the Petitioner and of each of the Intervenors regarding the M/WBE requirements of the bid specifications.Evidence was insufficient to show that agency acted improperly in evaluation and award of bids and in disposition of Minority/Women's Business Enterprise (M/WBE) issues.
98-001179RP  GULF CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC. vs SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT  (1998)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 09, 1998
Whether the proposed amendment to Rule 40E-7.653, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.Proposed rule valid. Not an ex posto law; can apply retroactively; no denial of due process.
76-001766  DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO vs. EVELYNS, INC., T/A THE OTHER DOOR  (1976)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Feb. 11, 1977
Whether or not on or about June 21, 1976, the Respondent, Evelyns, Inc., did permit its agents, servants, or employees, to wit: Kevin Kierstead and Alan Rogers to expose their sexual organs on its licensed premise which is open to the public, in a vulgar and indecent manner in violation of s. 800.03, F.S., thereby violating s. 561.29, F.S. Whether or not on or about June 21, l976,the Respondent, Evelyns, Inc., did permit its agents, servants, or employees, to wit: Kevin Kiersiead and Alan Rogers to engage in lewd and lascivious conduct, to wit: displaying sexual organs in a lewd and lascivious manner in violation of s. 795.02, F.S., thereby violating s. 561.29, F.S.Petitioner failed to show Respondent allowed its employees to engage in lewd acts and expose themselves in public. Recommended Order: dismiss charges.

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