welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  8. James Andrew McKee
James Andrew McKee
James Andrew McKee
Visitors: 40
0
License for 21 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you James Andrew McKee? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

  Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Hillsborough County  (1935)
Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Sep. 30, 1935
This is a suit in equity to recover a balance due on certain certificates of indebtedness issued pursuant to Chapter 9316, Acts of 1923, Laws of Florida. The bill of complaint in substance alleges that in February, 1925, Hillsborough County entered into six contracts with J.W. Copeland to pave, grade, and curb designated roads, that said contracts were let to the lowest competitive bidder and the roads were completed and accepted by the County, that on October 27, 1925, the County issued to the c..
  Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Hillsborough County  (1935)
Supreme Court of Florida Filed: Sep. 30, 1935
This is a suit in equity to recover a balance due on certain certificates of indebtedness issued pursuant to Chapter 9316, Acts of 1923, Laws of Florida. The bill of complaint in substance alleges that in February, 1925, Hillsborough County entered into six contracts with J.W. Copeland to pave, grade, and curb designated roads, that said contracts were let to the lowest competitive bidder and the roads were completed and accepted by the County, that on October 27, 1925, the County issued to the c..
17-006655RU  DACCO BEHAVORIAL HEALTH, INC.; OPERATION PAR, INC.; AND ASPIRE PARTNERS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 11, 2017
The issue in this case is whether Florida Administrative Code Emergency Rule 65DER17-2 (the “Emergency Rule”) constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes. (Unless specifically stated otherwise herein, all references to Florida Statutes will be to the 2017 version.) More specifically, on September 19, 2017, the Florida Department of Children and Families (the “Department”), published the Emergency Rule, which dealt with the need for and licensing of new methadone medication-assisted treatment centers for persons dealing with opioid addiction. Pursuant to the Emergency Rule, the Department decided which providers would receive approval notices to submit licensure applications in certain counties based on the order in which complete and responsive applications were received by the Department. A number of parties are challenging the validity of the Emergency Rule.The Emergency Rule constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
15-007022RP  TAMPA BAY DOWNS, INC., AND TBDG ACQUISITION, LLC, D/B/A TGT POKER AND RACEBOOK vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING  (2015)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 11, 2015
The issues for disposition in this case are whether proposed rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, which consist of the repeal of said rules, constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes; and whether the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering’s (Respondent), failure to prepare a statement of estimated regulatory costs constituted a material failure to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures or requirements set forth in chapter 120.The proposed repeal of rules 61D-11.001(17) and 61D-11.002(5) dealing with "designated player" games, was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
15-007267  DANIEL BANKS vs DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, OFFICE OF COMPASSIONATE USE  (2015)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 18, 2015
The issue in this case is whether a nolo contendere plea by Petitioner, Daniel Banks, to possession of a controlled substance (phenobarbital) in the State of Kansas in 2004 is a disqualifying offense under section 435.04, Florida Statutes. (Unless specifically stated otherwise herein, all references to Florida Statutes shall be to the 2015 version.)Petitioner's crime committed in Kansas in 2004 was not a felony, thus it was not a disqualifying event.
15-002537BID  LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC. vs FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT  (2015)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 06, 2015
On June 4, 2015, an administrative hearing in this case was held in Tallahassee, Florida, before William F. Quattlebaum, Administrative Law Judge, Division of Administrative Hearings.Petitioner does not have substantial interest to be determined in proceeding; therefore, Petition for hearing should be dismissed.
14-002828BID  CENTURYLINK PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS, INC., D/B/A CENTURY LINK vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 18, 2014
Is Respondent, Department of Corrections' (Department), Notice of Intent to Award DC RFP-13-031 for Statewide Inmate Telecommunication Services to Intervenor, Global Tel*Link Corporation (Global), contrary to the governing statutes, rules, or policies or to the Department's Request for Proposal solicitation specifications?RFP did not require labeled subsections. Agency arbitrarily ranked responses not marked by subsection s omitted. Allowing 2 bidders to exclude commissions from blended rate when RFP said they must be included was arbitrary and capricious.
14-002894BID  SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 18, 2014
Is Respondent, Department of Corrections' (Department), Notice of Intent to Award DC RFP-13-031 for Statewide Inmate Telecommunication Services to Intervenor, Global Tel*Link Corporation (Global), contrary to the governing statutes, rules, or policies or to the Department's Request for Proposal solicitation specifications?RFP did not require labeled subsections. Agency arbitrarily ranked responses not marked by subsection s omitted. Allowing 2 bidders to exclude commissions from blended rate when RFP said they must be included was arbitrary and capricious.
13-003894BID  CUSHMAN AND WAKEFIELD OF FLORIDA, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES  (2013)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 10, 2013
Pursuant to chapter 287, Florida Statutes, and section 255.25, Florida Statutes,1/ the Department of Management Services (DMS) released an Invitation to Negotiate for a contract to provide tenant broker and real estate consulting services to the State of Florida under Invitation to Negotiate No. DMS-12/13-007 (ITN). After evaluating the replies, negotiating with five vendors, and holding public meetings, DMS posted a notice of intent to award a contract to CBRE, Inc. (CBRE) and Vertical Integration, Inc. (Vertical). At issue in this proceeding is whether DMS’s intended decision to award a contract for tenant broker and real estate consulting services to CBRE and Vertical is contrary to DMS’s governing statutes, its rules or policies, or the ITN’s specifications, or was otherwise clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioner challenged intended award of contract for tenant broker and real estate consulting services to competing vendors, but failed to prove that DMS's award decision was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.
13-003895BID  JONES LANG LASALLE AMERICAS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES  (2013)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 10, 2013
Pursuant to chapter 287, Florida Statutes, and section 255.25, Florida Statutes,1/ the Department of Management Services (DMS) released an Invitation to Negotiate for a contract to provide tenant broker and real estate consulting services to the State of Florida under Invitation to Negotiate No. DMS-12/13-007 (ITN). After evaluating the replies, negotiating with five vendors, and holding public meetings, DMS posted a notice of intent to award a contract to CBRE, Inc. (CBRE) and Vertical Integration, Inc. (Vertical). At issue in this proceeding is whether DMS’s intended decision to award a contract for tenant broker and real estate consulting services to CBRE and Vertical is contrary to DMS’s governing statutes, its rules or policies, or the ITN’s specifications, or was otherwise clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Petitioner challenged intended award of contract for tenant broker and real estate consulting services to competing vendors, but failed to prove that DMS's award decision was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary or capricious.

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