Leon FL Lawyers | Kurt Eric Ahrendt -- eLawyers

Kurt Eric Ahrendt

Visitors: 76

850-414-0139

Bar #343625(FL) License for 43 years

Tallahassee FL

Are you Kurt Eric Ahrendt? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

Related Laws :

CFR: 29 CFR 1601.70

Florida Laws: 1.01, 110.1165, 120.569, 120.57, 120.60, 120.68, 20.197, 393.063, 393.065, 393.0655, 393.067, 393.0673, 393.13, 415.102, 435.02, 435.03, 435.04, 435.06, 435.07, 464.201, 509.092, 57.111, 741.28, 760.01, 760.10, 760.11, 810.02, 812.014, 831.02, 843.01, 90.802, 90.803, 92.50, 943.059

Florida Administrative Code: 65G-2.0041, 65G-2.008, 65G-2.009

8:99 BK 18423 PMG In Re Camelot Casino Cruises, Inc. (2005)

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida Filed: Jul. 06, 2005 Citations: 330 B.R. 263

330 B.R. 263 (2005) In re CAMELOT CASINO CRUISES, INC., Debtor. No. 8:99 BK 18423 PMG. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. July 6, 2005. *264 *265 B. Gray Gibbs, St. Petersburg, FL, for Debtor. ORDER ON CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO MALCOLM M. BABB'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE PAUL M. GLENN, Chief Judge. THIS CASE came before the Court for hearing to consider the Motion for Summary Judgment as to Malcolm M. Babb's Request for Pa..

Bankruptcy No. 92-6411-8B1. Adv. No. 92-583 Matter of Commonweal, Inc. (1994)

United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida Filed: Aug. 12, 1994 Citations: 171 B.R. 405

171 B.R. 405 (1994) In the Matter of COMMONWEAL, INC., Debtor. COMMONWEAL, INC., Plaintiff, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 92-6411-8B1. Adv. No. 92-583. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. August 12, 1994. *406 R. Wade Wetherington, for debtor/plaintiff. A.B. Phillips, for defendant. ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THOMAS E. BAYNES, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge. THIS MATTER came on for consideration upon the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the ..

17-002567EXE DESHONDA ROSS vs AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 02, 2017

Whether the Agency for Persons with Disabilities’ (Agency) intended decision to deny Petitioner’s application for exemption from disqualification for employment is an abuse of the Agency’s discretion.Petitioner did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that she was rehabilitated from her former disqualifying offense.

17-003264EXE AMELIA HOLLIS vs AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 06, 2017

Whether the Agency for Persons with Disabilities’ (Agency) intended decision to deny Petitioner’s application for exemption from disqualification for employment is an abuse of the Agency’s discretion.Petitioner did not prove her rehabilitation by clear and convincing evidence. The Agency's intended denial of Petitioner's request for exemption from disqualification is not an abuse of discretion.

17-002769EXE MOLITA CUNNINGHAM vs AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 15, 2017

Whether Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that she is rehabilitated from her disqualifying offenses; and, if so, whether Respondent's intended action to deny Petitioner's request for an exemption from employment disqualification would constitute an abuse of discretion.Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that she is rehabilitated from disqualifying offenses. The Agency's intended decision to deny exemption was without credible evidence at hearing and an abuse of discretion.

17-003087EXE CARLA JOHNSON-LANE vs AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: May 23, 2017

The issue in this case is whether Petitioner has demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that she should not be disqualified from employment in a position involving direct contact with children or developmentally disabled persons; and, if so, whether Respondent’s intended agency action to deny her request for an exemption from disqualification is an abuse of discretion.Petitioner did not appear at the final hearing. Therefore, Petitioner failed to prove that the Agency's denial of her request for exemption from disqualification was an abuse of discretion.

17-000940EXE CLARISSA AILES vs AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 13, 2017

Whether Petitioner demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that she is rehabilitated from her disqualifying offense; and, if so, whether Respondent would abuse its discretion if it denied Petitioner’s request for an exemption from disqualification from employment, pursuant to chapter 435, Florida Statutes (2016).1/Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that she has been rehabilitated from her disqualifying offenses.

17-002254 BERTHA DELANEY vs AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 13, 2017

The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should be granted an exemption from disqualification from employment with a private contractor providing adult day training to developmentally disabled clients of Respondent.Petitioner is fully rehabilitated and should be granted an exemption from disqualification from employment with a private contractor providing adult day training to developmentally disabled clients of Respondent.

17-002471EXE VIJAY RAMJIT vs AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (2017)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Apr. 24, 2017

Whether Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is rehabilitated from his disqualifying offenses, and, if so, whether Respondent's intended action to deny Petitioner's request for an exemption from employment disqualification would constitute an abuse of discretion.Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that he was rehabilitated, and APD's denial of his request for exemption from disqualification was an abuse of discretion.

15-003621F WE CARE LIFE SOURCE, LLC vs AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES (2015)

Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 23, 2015

The issue is whether Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities (Agency), had a reasonable basis in law and fact to initially deny Petitioner's application for a license to operate a group home, or whether other circumstances were present that would make an award of attorney's fees and costs unjust within the meaning of section 57.111(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2015).Agency was substantially justified in initially denying Petitioner's application for licensure and special circumstances present that make an award of fees and costs unjust.