Leon FL Administrative law and Environmental Law Lawyers

Kelly Brewton Plante

Visitors: 53

Bar #866441(FL) License for 35 years

Tallahassee FL

Are you Kelly Brewton Plante? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

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

99-003450 CFSATC, INC., D/B/A CENTRAL FLORIDA SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT CENTER vs DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES (1999)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 12, 1999

Whether CFSATC, Inc. (Petitioner), should be selected as the service provider instead of Metro Treatment of Florida, L.P. (Metro/Intervenor), to meet the need of an additional outpatient methadone maintenance program in the Department of Children and Family Services (DCF), District 7 (Osceola County).Petitioner failed to prove that it should have been selected as the service provider to meet the need for an outpatient methadone maintenance program. The Intervenor is better qualified.

96-000343RP CALDER RACE COURSE, INC.; TROPICAL PARK, INC.; AND GULFSTREAM RACING ASSOCIATION, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING (1996)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 19, 1996

The parties’ stipulation filed March 21, 1997, states there are no disputed facts and describes these disputed issues of law: whether proposed rule 61D-2.002 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority; whether proposed rule 61D-2.002 violates the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution; and whether proposed rule 61D-2.002 violates Article I, Sections 12 and 23 of the Florida Constitution.Proposed rule permitting warrantless searches by division of pari-mutuel wagering is invalid as no specific statute authorizes such searches.

97-001506BID ELBECO, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (1997)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 02, 1997

Whether the Department of Corrections acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly, thus subverting the purposes of the bid statute by deciding to reject all bids submitted in response to invitation to bid number 97-DC-7048? Whether the Department of Corrections, after initiating a competitive bid process for the purchase of commodities under Section 287 et seq. Florida Statutes, is permitted to award the contract for the purchase of the commodities to PRIDE under Section 946.515, Florida Statutes, without regard for the requirements of the bid statute, Section 287 et seq. Florida Statutes? Whether the Department of Corrections violated the purposes of the bid statute by commencing and continuing negotiations with PRIDE regarding the uniform shirts that were the subject of invitation to bid number, 97-DC-7048, after the rejection of all bids submitted in response to the Invitation To Bid (ITB)?Petitioner showed Respondent improperly rejected all BIDs and refused to reissue Invitation to BID (ITB).

96-003553RU PERRY A. MCMAHON AND GEOFFREY COX vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (1996)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jul. 25, 1996

As provided in the notice of hearing, the issues for disposition in this proceeding are whether agency statements within a memorandum and notice of Final Executive Order issued by the Department of Environmental Protection on July 5, 1996 are rules subject to sections 120.535 and 120.54, Florida Statutes, and if so whether the statements violate those sections. 1/ Petitioners pled only a violation of section 120.54, Florida Statutes, and contend that the remedy they seek, a determination of the invalidity of the agency statements, is available without recourse to section 120.535, Florida Statutes. At hearing, the parties, including Petitioners, availed themselves of the opportunity to elicit evidence related to section 120.535, Florida Statutes.Agency statement reclassifying shellfish harvesting areas is a rule and unpromulgated it violated 120.535.

93-004560 CAROLE POPE vs DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (1993)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 17, 1993

Whether the Petitioners, and each of them, have standing to bring the instant action before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Whether the 5500 North Corporation has meets the requirements set forth in Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, and Rule 16B-33, Florida Administrative Code, for obtaining a permit to construct a structure seaward to the coastal construction control line (CCCL).Petitioner has shown necessity for CCCL permit; dune & turtle impacts minim- al; local government approval valid; one petitioner failed to show standing.

92-005313 JO-ANN DUFFY vs SUNSHINE JR STORES, INC. (1992)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 31, 1992

The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was the victim of a discriminatory employment practice perpetrated by the Respondent by the alleged discharge of the Petitioner on account of her handicap.Petitioner did not prove Prima facie case of discrimination because not shown replaced by member of non-protected class. Even if so respondent showed unrefuted legitimate business decision.

90-008051 CASA MARINA DEVELOPMENT, INC.; ROYAL PELICAN DEVELOPMENT, INC.; AND STARDIAL INVESTMENTS, CO. vs DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (1990)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 20, 1990

The issue is whether petitioners' development is entitled to a favorable determination by respondent under Subsection 380.0651(3)(e)1.c., Florida Statutes (1989), and thus is exempt from development of regional impact review.Insufficient evidence by marina to claim exemption from Development of Regional Impact. requirement. Threatened harm to manatees if approval given.

91-000257 GRAY CONTRACTING, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (1991)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 10, 1991

Whether the Respondent is entitled to a credit for unit price work which was not performed under the contract. Whether the contractor is entitled to additional payment for the electrical work on the outside stairwells and interior modifications. Whether the contractor is entitled to additional payment for installing the 3-inch drain for the HVAC discharge. Whether the Respondent is entitled to access $3,750.00 in liquidated damages against the contractor for completing the project ten (10) days beyond the scheduled completion date.BID case. Recommended Order holds certain work was properly excluded from contract price based upon interpretation of the word "provide". Final Order rejects Recommended Order .