welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Jesse Wendell Rigby
Jesse Wendell Rigby
Jesse Wendell Rigby
Visitors: 45
0
Bar #252433(FL)     License for 47 years
Pensacola FL

Are you Jesse Wendell Rigby? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

6:06-bk-01375  Mack Properties, Inc  (2007)
United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida Filed: Nov. 16, 2007 Citations: 381 B.R. 793
381 B.R. 793 (2007) In re MACK PROPERTIES, INC., Debtor. No. 6:06-bk-01375-ABB. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Orlando Division. November 16, 2007. *794 Jonathan B. Alper, Jonathan B. Alper PLC, Heathrow, FL, for Debtor. John H. Meininger, III, John H. Meininger III PA, Orlando, FL, for Robert E. Thomas. Miriam G. Suarez, Orlando, FL, for U.S. Trustee. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ARTHUR B. BRISKMAN, Bankruptcy Judge. This matter came before the Court on the Application of Trustee ..
08-004753GM  BELLE MER OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. vs SANTA ROSA COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS  (2008)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 23, 2008
The issues in this proceeding are whether Santa Rosa County Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2007-R-047 adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-16, section 2, attachment A, on May 22, 2008 (Plan Amendment), is "in compliance," as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and, more specifically, whether the Plan Amendment is "internally consistent" with Objectives 7.1.B and 7.1.F and Policy 7.1.F.8 of the Santa Rosa County Comprehensive Plan (Plan) and supported by adequate data and analyses.1The challenger to a comprehensive plan amendment did not prove beyond fair debate that the amendment was not "in compliance."
06-003496EF  DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION vs KEITH A. HETHINGTON  (2006)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 18, 2006
The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent should have a monetary administrative penalty imposed for violations of the statutes and rules cited herein, and whether the Respondent should be required to take corrective actions concerning those alleged violations and pay related investigative costs.Petitioner in a notice of violation proved that Respondent had not built the required stormwater system; allowed open burning, and on one day, did not have the required personnel present. Due to mitigating circumstances the penalty should be reduced.
98-005062  WARREN BRIGGS vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  (1998)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 16, 1998
The issues in this case are: Whether Petitioner, Warren M. Briggs ("Briggs"), should be issued a Wetland Resource Permit (WRP) for the construction of a single-family dwelling on a lot with jurisdictional wetlands in Santa Rosa County, Florida, as proposed in his application submission of 1998; and Whether the Department would permit the construction of a single-family dwelling on the subject lot under conditions and circumstances other than those set forth in Briggs' application.Petitioner failed to provide adequate assurances that application would not disturb jurisdictional wetlands. Recommended that Petitioner`s permit application be denied.
92-006376  WEBBS WOOD PRODUCTS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION  (1992)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 28, 1992
The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner, Webbs Wood Products, Inc., is eligible for participation and reimbursement in and from the Abandoned Tank Restoration Program (ATRP) as provided for in Section 376.305(7), Florida Statutes, concerning its facility located in Gonzalez, Florida.Stat def. of term ""facility"" for determin elig. for clean-up funds can in- clude multp tank systems if on same parcel & serving same business purpose.
90-002748BID  JACK MOORE AND COMPANY, INC. vs OKALOOSA-WALTON JUNIOR COLLEGE  (1990)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 07, 1990
The issue addressed in this proceeding is whether Petitioner or Intervenor submitted the lowest and best bid.Bid challenge-confusion over bid specifications insufficient to set aside award to low bidder-words ""most likely"" mean most likely-not a guarantee

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