welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  8. Jonathan Patrick Sanford
Jonathan Patrick Sanford
Jonathan Patrick Sanford
Visitors: 55
0
Bar #86400(FL)     License for 29 years; Member in Good Standing
Tallahassee FL

Are you Jonathan Patrick Sanford? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Bankruptcy No. 87-2896-BKC-S12, Adv. Nos. 89-25, 88-192  In Re Cravey  (1989)
United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida Filed: Sep. 29, 1989 Citations: 105 B.R. 700
105 B.R. 700 (1989) In re James J. CRAVEY, aka/dba Cravey Farms, Brenda C. Cravey, Debtors. Ward E. SMITH and Margaret M. Smith, Plaintiffs, v. James J. CRAVEY and Brenda C. Cravey, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 87-2896-BKC-S12, Adv. Nos. 89-25, 88-192. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida. September 29, 1989. *701 W. Gregg McCaulie, Jacksonville, Fla., for plaintiffs. A. Jeffrey Tomassetti, Fernandina Beach, Fla., for defendants. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW GEORGE L. PROCTOR, Ba..
17-003894RX  FLORIDA AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION vs FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 11, 2017
Whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 15C-16.012(5)1/ (the “Rule”) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.Petitioner demonstrated that existing rule 15C-16.012(5) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
17-002090F  STEPHEN J. WILLIAMS, AS A TRUSTEE FOR THE SPARKHILL TRUST vs FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY SAFETY AND MOTOR VEHICLES  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 07, 2017
The issues in this case are whether Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and/or costs, pursuant to section 120.595(4); and, if so, the amounts of attorney's fees and/or costs to which he is entitled.Petitioner is not an "attorney" under Florida law so is not legally entitled to an award of attorney's fees for prevailing in an unadopted rule challenge under section 120.56(4). Petitioner is entitled to costs.
16-005237BID  BRIDGES OF AMERICA, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS  (2016)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 13, 2016
The issue to be determined is whether the specifications for Request for Proposals number FDC RFP-17-108, “Community Release Center (CRC) in Orange County, Florida,” are contrary to the governing statutes, rules or policies of the Florida Department of Corrections (the Department or DOC).Petitioner did not demonstrate that the proposed RFP specifications were clearly erroneous contrary to competitive, or arbitrary and capricious.
14-004743BID  BRIDGES OF AMERICA, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 13, 2014
The issue in this case is whether, in deciding to award a contract for comprehensive re-entry services to be provided at the Baker Re-Entry Center (”Baker”), Respondent, Department of Corrections (the “Department” or “DOC”), acted contrary to one or more governing statutes, rules, policies, or procurement specifications, or any combination thereof; and if so, for each such instance, whether the misstep was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition.There is no legal basis for withdrawing or re-issuing the Department's intended award of the contract.
14-004744BID  BRIDGES OF AMERICA, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 13, 2014
The issue in this case is whether in deciding to award a contract for comprehensive re-entry services to be provided at the Everglades Re-Entry Center (”Everglades”), Respondent, Department of Corrections (the “Department” or “DOC”), acted contrary to one or more governing statutes, rules, policies, or procurement specifications, or any combination thereof; and if so, for each such instance, whether the misstep was clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition.There is no legal basis for withdrawing or re-issuing the Department's intended award of the contract.
14-000985BID  KEEFE COMMISSARY NETWORK, L.L.C. vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 04, 2014
Whether the Florida Department of Corrections’ (Department) intended decision to award Trinity Services Group, Inc. (Trinity) with a contract for Statewide Canteen Operations under Invitation to Bid, DOC ITB-13-015 (ITB), is contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications.Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent acted contraty to its governing statutes, rules or policies, or the bid specifications.
13-003028BID  GLOBAL TEL LINK CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS  (2013)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 15, 2013
Whether the Department of Corrections? action to withdraw its Intent to Award and to reject all replies to ITN 12-DC-8396 is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, and if so, whether its Intent to Award is contrary to governing statutes, rules, policies, or the solicitation specifications.Petitioners failed to prove that the Department's rejection of all replies due to unclear criteria for award is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
13-003029BID  EMBARQ PAYPHONE SERVICES, INC., D/B/A CENTURYLINK vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS  (2013)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 15, 2013
Whether the Department of Corrections? action to withdraw its Intent to Award and to reject all replies to ITN 12-DC-8396 is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, and if so, whether its Intent to Award is contrary to governing statutes, rules, policies, or the solicitation specifications.Petitioners failed to prove that the Department's rejection of all replies due to unclear criteria for award is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.
13-003030BID  SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS  (2013)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 15, 2013
Whether the Department of Corrections? action to withdraw its Intent to Award and to reject all replies to ITN 12-DC-8396 is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent, and if so, whether its Intent to Award is contrary to governing statutes, rules, policies, or the solicitation specifications.Petitioners failed to prove that the Department's rejection of all replies due to unclear criteria for award is illegal, arbitrary, dishonest, or fraudulent.

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