Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Marisa Gene Button
Marisa Gene Button
Visitors: 70
0
Bar #102263(FL)     License for 12 years; Member in Good Standing
Tallahassee FL

Are you Marisa Gene Button? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

17-001543BID  JOE MORETTI PHASE THREE, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 14, 2017
The issue for determination in this consolidated bid protest proceeding is whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”) acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to competition by deeming the applications of Joe Moretti Phase Three, LLC. (“Moretti Phase Three”) and Stirrup Plaza Phase Three, LLC. (“Stirrup Plaza Phase Three”) ineligible for Request for Applications 2016-114, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Miami-Dade County (“RFA 2016-114”).Petitioners failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing's actions regarding their requests to amend Extended Use Agreements were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition.
17-001544BID  STIRRUP PLAZA PHASE THREE, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 14, 2017
The issue for determination in this consolidated bid protest proceeding is whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (“Florida Housing”) acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to competition by deeming the applications of Joe Moretti Phase Three, LLC. (“Moretti Phase Three”) and Stirrup Plaza Phase Three, LLC. (“Stirrup Plaza Phase Three”) ineligible for Request for Applications 2016-114, Housing Credit Financing for Affordable Housing Developments Located in Miami-Dade County (“RFA 2016-114”).Petitioners failed to demonstrate that Florida Housing's actions regarding their requests to amend Extended Use Agreements were arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to competition.
17-003270BID  MADISON POINT, LLC AND AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, LLC vs FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION  (2017)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 07, 2017
The issue for determination in this bid protest proceeding is whether the Florida Housing Finance Corporation’s (“Florida Housing”) intended award of tax credits for the preservation of existing affordable housing developments was clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, or capricious.Intervenor's exclusion of existing, occupied units on the proposed development site constituted a material non-waivable error; tax credits should be awarded to Petitioners.
14-005276RU  ROBERT G. DAWSON vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING  (2014)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Nov. 07, 2014
The first issue is whether the Greyhound Veterinary Assistant Procedures Manual published by the Division of Pari- Mutuel Wagering ("Division Manual") constitutes an unadopted rule in violation of section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2014).1/ Petitioner further contends that the agency materially failed to follow applicable rulemaking procedures with respect to the Division Manual; that it is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, invests unbridled discretion in the agency; and is arbitrary and capricious, in violation of sections 120.52(8)(a), (d), and (e). A second issue is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-6.002 is an invalid exercise of delegated authority because it enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the provisions of section 550.0251(3), Florida Statutes; is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decision, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency; or is arbitrary and capricious, in violation of sections 120.52(8)(c), (d), and (e). Petitioner further contends that rule 61D-6.002 violates Petitioner's due process rights and is therefore unconstitutional.Portion of Greyhound Veterinary Assistant Procedures Manual was in violation of section 120.54(1)(a); Petitioner failed to prove that the rule 61D-6.002 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
15-005037  KIRK ZIADIE vs DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, DIVISION OF PARI-MUTUEL WAGERING  (2015)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 14, 2015
The issue is whether Petitioner's application for renewal of his professional occupational license as a thoroughbred horse trainer should be granted.Respondent failed to prove violation of section 550.2415(1)(a), Florida Statutes, because the procedures followed in conducting drug tests constituted an unadopted rule and were contrary to the adopted rule.
15-000776PL  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE vs EDDIE MANNING, M.D.  (2015)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 13, 2015
The issues in this case are whether Respondents performed a wrong procedure on patient C.C., as set forth in the second amended administrative complaints, and if so, what is the appropriate sanction.Petitioner failed to prove that a wrong procedure was performed where the infected organ was removed and the patient's symptoms resolved, although the procedure that had been identified was not performed, because the procedure may have been misidentified.
15-000775PL  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE vs KENNETH D. STAHL, M.D.  (2015)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 13, 2015
The issues in this case are whether Respondents performed a wrong procedure on patient C.C., as set forth in the second amended administrative complaints, and if so, what is the appropriate sanction.Petitioner failed to prove that a wrong procedure was performed where the infected organ was removed and the patient's symptoms resolved, although the procedure that had been identified was not performed, because the procedure may have been misidentified.
13-003375PL  DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF MEDICINE vs LEONARD R. MARQUEZ GARCIA, M.D.  (2013)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 10, 2013
Whether Respondent, a medical doctor, practiced beyond the scope of his temporary certification and/or failed to notify the Board of Medicine of changes in employment, as Petitioner alleges; if so, whether (and what) disciplinary measures should be taken against Respondent's temporary license, which authorizes him to practice only in areas of critical need.That the Board of Medicine enter a final order imposing on Respondent a two-year suspension; a $1,000.00 administrative fine; and a one-hour lecture on the reporting requirements of a temporary certificate for practice in areas of critical need.

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