Elawyers Elawyers
Lynette Caryl Norr
Lynette Caryl Norr
Visitors: 107
0
Bar #10717(FL)     License for 20 years
Tallahassee FL

Are you Lynette Caryl Norr? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

07-005107GM  COUNTY OF VOLUSIA; THOMAS STEVENS; ALMA MAE BUCKHALT; AND MARGARET BENNETT RAULERSON vs DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND PUTNAM COUNTY  (2007)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 07, 2007
The issue in this case is whether the amendment to the Putnam County Comprehensive Plan adopted pursuant to Ordinance 2007-27, as modified by Ordinance 2008-32, is “in compliance,” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2008).1/Petitioners failed to prove beyond fair debate that Putnam County's comprehensive plan amendment was not "in compliance."
07-003539GM  DUNN CREEK, LLC vs CITY OF JACKSONVILLE AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS  (2007)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Aug. 01, 2007
The issues are whether the City of Jacksonville's (City's) Ordinance No. 2008-628-E adopted on September 9, 2008, which remediates Ordinance No. 2007-383-E, is in compliance, and whether Chapter 2009-96, Laws of Florida, renders this proceeding moot, as alleged by Petitioner, Dunn Creek, LLC (Dunn or Petitioner).Remedial amendment changing land use back to original use is in compliance; less data and analysis are required for this type of amendment.
09-001044PL  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF CLINICAL SOCIAL WORK, MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPY, AND MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELING vs GAIL PATRICIA BRACK, PH.D., L.M.F.T., L.M.H.C.  (2009)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 26, 2009
The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 491.009(1)(r) and 491.009(1)(u), Florida Statutes (2003),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.Respondent breached psychotherapist-patient confidentiality.
07-004598GM  SARASOTA SHOPPINGTOWN LLC vs SARASOTA COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS  (2007)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 05, 2007
The ultimate issue is whether Sarasota County's comprehensive plan amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2007-64 (Plan Amendments), as amended by remedial plan amendments adopted by Ordinance No. 2008-33 (Remedial Plan Amendments), are in compliance, as provided by Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes, with respect to: 1) whether the county's designation of several segments of University Parkway as Level of Service (LOS) D for concurrency review, on the basis of a claim that the road is "constrained," is supported by data and analysis; 2) whether the supporting traffic analysis was conducted in a professionally acceptable manner; and 3) whether the identified transportation facilities are financially feasible.Petitioner failed to prove that reducing LOS of a road lacked supporting data and analysis, that traffic data and analysis were inappropriate, and that the remedial plan amendment relied on transportation improvements not financially feasible
07-005755GM  LESEMAN FAMILY LAND PARTNERSHIP; WALTER E. MURPHREE, JR.; AND DEBRA C. TREECE, vs CLAY COUNTY AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS  (2007)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Dec. 20, 2007
The issue in this case is whether the amendment to the Future Land Use Map of the Clay County Comprehensive Plan, adopted by Ordinance No. 2007-53, is “in compliance” as that term is defined in Section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2007).1Petitioners failed to prove that the designation of 47 acres as Rural Fringe was not "in incompliance."
21-000076RU  PATRICIA BROOKS vs FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF PHYSICAL THERAPY  (2021)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 08, 2021
The issues to be presented for determination are whether the statements alleged in the Petition and the Amended Petition are agency statements of the Board meeting the definition of a rule in section 120.52, Florida Statutes, and, if so, whether they have been adopted as rules through the rulemaking process outlined in section 120.54.Petition regarding alleged unadopted rule filed against the wrong agency; and alleged statements are statements of a private vendor. Petition dismissed.

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