welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Johnny P. ElHachem
Johnny P. ElHachem
Johnny P. ElHachem
Visitors: 37
0
Bar #1015837(FL)    
Tallahassee FL

Are you Johnny P. ElHachem? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

Florida Laws: 120.52, 120.54, 120.541, 120.56, 120.565, 120.569, 120.57, 120.595, 120.66, 120.68, 20.165, 456.079, 550.002, 550.0115, 550.0251, 550.054, 550.0745, 550.105, 550.155, 550.2415, 550.26165, 550.2625, 550.505, 550.6308, 551.101, 551.102, 551.104, 551.114, 551.122, 57.111, 849.086, 849.14, 90.801

Florida Administrative Code: 28-106.108, 61D-14.018, 61D-14.050

19-004245RU  SCF, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 12, 2019
The factual issues in this unadopted-rule challenge relate to whether Respondent, in connection with the administration of the state’s gaming laws, has formulated statements of general applicability that have the effect of giving each slot machine licensee the rights (i) to maintain and operate an outdoor live gaming facility for the conduct of pari-mutuel wagering activities, wherein slot machine gaming areas could not lawfully be located, so long as its slot machines are housed elsewhere, in an enclosed building; and (ii) to locate slot machine gaming areas in a separate, stand-alone building having no integral systems, structures, or elements, provided the building is located on the same parcel, and on the same side of the street, river, or similar obstacle, as the live gaming facility. If Respondent has developed such a statement or statements, then the ultimate issue is whether such statements meet the statutory definition of an unadopted rule.Respondent’s statements that slot machine licensees have the rights to operate outdoor live gaming facilities, and to locate slot machine gaming areas in separate, stand-alone buildings, are unadopted rules.
19-002860RU  THE FLORIDA HORSEMEN'S BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, INC., FLORIDA THOROUGHBRED OWNERS AND BREEDERS ASSOCIATION, INC. AND OCALA BREEDERS' SALES COMPANY, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 29, 2019
Whether the FHBPA, FTBOA, and OBS have standing to bring this unadopted rule challenge; and, if so, whether their petition was timely; and, if so, whether the Division’s determination that a new summer jai alai permit was made available and that Calder is eligible for a new summer jai alai permit pursuant to section 550.0745(1), Florida Statutes (2019), is based on unadopted rules.FHBPA, FTBOA, and OBS have standing to asssert that alleged agency statements constitute unadopted rules. However, none of the alleged statements constitute unadopted rules.
19-001617  THE FLORIDA HORSEMEN'S BENEVOLENT AND PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING; AND CALDER RACE COURSE, INC.  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 25, 2019
Whether the FHBPA, FTBOA, and OBS have standing to challenge the Division’s issuance of a new summer jai alai permit to Calder; and, if so, whether FHBPA’s petition and FTBOA’s and OBS’s motions to intervene were timely; and, if so, whether the Division properly granted a new summer jai alai permit to Calder pursuant to section 550.0745(1), Florida Statutes (2019), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-4.002.FHBPA, FTBOA, and OBS have standing to asssert that alleged agency statements constitute unadopted rules. However, none of the alleged statements constitute unadopted rules.
19-004186RU  GEORGINA BAXTER-ROBERTS vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING  (2019)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 06, 2019
The issues to be determined are whether certain alleged statements by Respondent, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (the Division or Respondent), constitute unadopted rules in violation of section 120.54(1), Florida Statutes (2019), and whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-6.011, as effective September 5, 2018, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority as defined in section 120.52(8)(c), (d), and (e).Petitioner did not demonstrate that alleged Agency statements were rules, or that the challenged rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
20-002643PL  DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING vs JORGE LUIS DELGADO SANDOVAL  (2020)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 09, 2020

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