700 F. Supp. 26 (1988) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Paul HUNTER, Jr., Defendant. No. 87-749-Civ-J-14. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division. November 15, 1988. Dennis Moore, Asst. U.S. Atty., Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff. Paul Hunter, Jr., Jacksonville, Fla., pro se. OPINION SUSAN H. BLACK, District Judge. This case is before the Court on plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment, filed on November 17, 1987; the defendant's Answer To Motion For Summary Judgment,..
635 F. Supp. 2d 1312 (2008) Mae J. PORCELLI, Carolyn Porcelli, and Richard Porcelli, Plaintiffs, v. ONEBEACON INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., f/k/a General Accident Insurance Company, Defendant. No. 2:07-cv-613-FtM-29DNF. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division. July 15, 2008. *1313 Bob G. Freemon, Andrew Philip McDonald, Gary Lee Miller, Ron A. Hobgood, Freemon & Miller, PA, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiffs. Gerald T. Albrecht, Leann Patten Parker, Butler Pappas, LLP, Tampa, FL, for De..
971 F. Supp. 1442 (1997) Frank Andre WARE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Nos. 93-1172-CIV-T-17C, 93-1173-CIV-T-17C. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. July 21, 1997. *1443 *1444 *1445 *1446 Mina Jane Morgan, Mitcham, Weed, Barbas, Allen & Morgan, Tampa, FL, Anthony P. Gauthier, Thomas Patrick Howard, Law, Weathers & Richardson, Grand Rapids, MI, for Frank Andre Ware. Whitney L. Schmidt and Steven Nisbitt, Asst. U.S. Atty., U.S. Attorney's Office, Midd..
499 F. Supp. 2d 1287 (2007) CONAX FLORIDA CORP., Plaintiff, v. ASTRIUM LTD., Defendant. No. 8:07-CV-76-T-TGW. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. July 18, 2007. *1288 *1289 Charles M. Harris, Jr., Trenam Kemker, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff. Alvin F. Lindsay, Daniel Eduardo Gonzalez, Richard C. Lorenzo, Hogan & Hartson, LLP, Miami, FL, for Defendant. ORDER THOMAS G. WILSON, United States Magistrate Judge. THIS CAUSE came on to be heard upon the defendant's Motion to Quash Serv..
129 B.R. 671 (1990) Michael J. SCARFIA, Debtor/Appellant, v. HOLIDAY BANK, Creditor/Appellee. No. 89-1309-CIV-T-13C. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. March 14, 1990. *672 Leo H. Meirose, St. Petersburg, Fla., Robert Polli, Tampa, Fla., for debtor/appellant. Roberta A. Colton, Tampa, Fla., for creditor/appellee. ORDER CASTAGNA, District Judge. The above-styled debtor's "Motion for Leave to Appeal Amended `Final' Order" of the bankruptcy court is only the most recent of M..
413 F. Supp. 780 (1976) Kenneth J. GARDNER, Plaintiff, v. INVESTIGATORS, INC., a Florida Corporation doing business as Fidelifacts, et al., Defendants. No. 76-39-Orl-Civ-R. United States District Court, M. D. Florida, Orlando Division. May 4, 1976. *781 Richard M. Cowen, Melbourne, Fla., for plaintiff. Ronald A. Harbert, of Mateer, Harbert, Bechtel & Phalin, P. A., Orlando, Fla., for defendant Investigators, Inc. Robert B. Worman, Law Offices of Linton S. Waterhouse, Orlando, Fla., for defendant ..
644 F. Supp. 339 (1986) UNITED GUARANTY RESIDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF IOWA, an Iowa corporation, Plaintiff, v. ALLIANCE MORTGAGE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Defendant. No. 85-934-Civ-J-14. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Jacksonville Division. September 26, 1986. Charles P. Pillans, III and T. Geoffrey Meekin, Bedell, Dittmar, DeVault & Pillans P.A., Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiff. John F. Corrigan, Douglas H. Morford, Ulmer, Murchison, Ashby, Taylor & Corrigan, Jacksonville..
733 F. Supp. 1455 (1990) Keith BEATTIE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG BEACH, et al., Defendants. No. 86-1562-Civ-T-13. United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. January 30, 1990. Ronald B. Halpern, Mark Brown, Rebecca Morgan, American Civil Liberties Union, St. Petersburg, Fla., for plaintiff. Luis Prats, Blasingame, Forizs & Smiljanich, P.A., St. Petersburg, Fla., for defendants. SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASTAGNA, District Judge. The parties have stipulated to the relevant facts..
The issues in this bid protest are whether Intervenor's bid materially deviated from the project specifications and, if so, whether Respondent's preliminary decision to award Intervenor the construction contract at issue was clearly erroneous, arbitrary or capricious, or contrary to competition.Intervenor`s bid did not materially deviate from the project specifications. Thus, Respondent`s preliminary decision to award Intervenor the construction contract at issue was not clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious or contrary to competition.
