welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Jed Berman
Jed Berman
Jed Berman
Visitors: 83
1
Bar #117436(FL)     License for 56 years
Winter Park FL

Are you Jed Berman? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

Florida Laws: 1.01, 120.54, 120.56, 120.569, 120.57, 120.68, 298.14, 395.51, 402.301, 402.305, 402.310, 402.319, 509.072, 561.01, 561.11, 561.15, 561.19, 561.20, 563.02, 564.02, 565.02, 57.105, 57.111, 624.10, 624.11, 624.307, 624.321, 626.015, 626.112, 626.211, 626.551, 626.561, 626.611, 626.621, 626.6215, 626.681, 626.691, 626.732, 626.734, 626.7845, 626.794, 626.951, 626.9521, 626.9541, 626.9561, 627.4554, 631.735, 901.21

Florida Administrative Code: 61A-1.006, 61A-5.0105, 69B-231.100, 69B-231.160

13-001227  DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO vs EDEN SUPPLY, LLC ("EDEN SUPPLY")  (2013)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 09, 2013
The issue in this case is whether the allegations set forth in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Petitioner) against Eden Supply, LLC (Respondent), are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Evidence warrants revocation of caterer's license.
10-002804PL  DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES vs EDUARDO ENRIQUE MENDEZ  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 24, 2010
Whether Respondents committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints, and, if so, what penalties should be imposed on either or both of them.Petititioner met its burden and demonstrated Respondents committed the violations in Count II of the Administrative Complaint by failing to remit premiums due to the insurer and wrongfully retaining them for their own use.
10-002805  DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES vs INSURANCE RESOURCES OF THE AMERICAS, INC.  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 24, 2010
Whether Respondents committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints, and, if so, what penalties should be imposed on either or both of them.Petititioner met its burden and demonstrated Respondents committed the violations in Count II of the Administrative Complaint by failing to remit premiums due to the insurer and wrongfully retaining them for their own use.
08-000495  LATINO GRANDE, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO  (2008)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 25, 2008
The issue is whether Respondent should exclude four entries in quota drawings for alcohol beverage licenses (license quota drawings) pursuant to Subsection 561.19(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2007),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 61A-1.006(8) and 61A-5.0105(8).2Respondent correctly rejected entries of corporate applicants as more than one application from 100 percent shareholder. A corporate applicant may challenge an adopted rule in a 120.57 proceeding.
08-000496  BIG PIG, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO  (2008)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 25, 2008
The issue is whether Respondent should exclude four entries in quota drawings for alcohol beverage licenses (license quota drawings) pursuant to Subsection 561.19(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2007),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 61A-1.006(8) and 61A-5.0105(8).2Respondent correctly rejected entries of corporate applicants as more than one application from 100 percent shareholder. A corporate applicant may challenge an adopted rule in a 120.57 proceeding.
08-000497  BIG PIG, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO  (2008)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 25, 2008
The issue is whether Respondent should exclude four entries in quota drawings for alcohol beverage licenses (license quota drawings) pursuant to Subsection 561.19(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2007),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 61A-1.006(8) and 61A-5.0105(8).2Respondent correctly rejected entries of corporate applicants as more than one application from 100 percent shareholder. A corporate applicant may challenge an adopted rule in a 120.57 proceeding.
08-000498  BIG PIG, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND TOBACCO  (2008)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 25, 2008
The issue is whether Respondent should exclude four entries in quota drawings for alcohol beverage licenses (license quota drawings) pursuant to Subsection 561.19(2)(d), Florida Statutes (2007),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rules 61A-1.006(8) and 61A-5.0105(8).2Respondent correctly rejected entries of corporate applicants as more than one application from 100 percent shareholder. A corporate applicant may challenge an adopted rule in a 120.57 proceeding.
07-003434PL  DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES vs VICTORIA NOLEN COLON  (2007)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 25, 2007
The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of an unfair or deceptive trade practice by selling ancillary insurance products to customers without adequate disclosure, in violation of Sections 626.9541(1)(z) and 626.621(6), Florida Statutes.Recommend a 30-day suspension for sliding.
06-004551PL  DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES vs TIMOTHY M. CROWLEY  (2006)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 13, 2006
The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Timothy Michael Crowley, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Financial Services, on September 14, 2006, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Respondent committed "sliding" as defined in Section 626.9541(1)(2)3, Florida Statutes.
06-004202PL  DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL SERVICES vs JACK ALEXANDER, JR.  (2006)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 31, 2006
The issues in this case are whether Respondent is guilty of violating provisions of the Florida Insurance Code as charged in Petitioner's Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Clear and convincing evidence was shown on one of three counts against Respondent for failing to inform an insurance customer as to problems associated with her application for homeowner insurance in which she mistakenly thought her home was insured.

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