Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Martin B. Sipple
Martin B. Sipple
Visitors: 62
0
Bar #135399(FL)     License for 27 years; Member in Good Standing
Tallahassee FL

Are you Martin B. Sipple? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

2D08-1107  Boyd v. State  (2008)
District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Nov. 26, 2008 Citations: 996 So. 2d 860
996 So. 2d 860 (2008) BOYD v. STATE. No. 2D08-1107. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. November 26, 2008. Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.
02-1109    (2003)
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Filed: Aug. 19, 2003 Citations: 333 F.3d 1330
333 F.3d 1330 The BOARD OF EDUCATION (for and on behalf of the BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY), MDS Research Foundation, Inc., and Taxolog, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. AMERICAN BIOSCIENCE, INC. (formerly known as Vivorx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), Defendant-Appellant, and Chunlin Tao, Defendant. No. 02-1109. United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. DECIDED: June 23, 2003. Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied: August 19, 2003. Jeffrey T. Thomas, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP,..
06-000571CON  WUESTHOFF MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., D/B/A WUESTHOFF MEDICAL CENTER - ROCKLEDGE AND WUESTHOFF MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC., D/B/A WUESTHOFF MEDICAL CENTER-MELBOURNE vs AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION AND HOLMES REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.  (2006)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Feb. 13, 2006
The issue is whether HRMC's Certificate of Need Application No. 9881 to establish an 84-bed acute care hospital in the Viera area, Brevard County, Florida, AHCA Subdistrict 7-1, should be approved.Respondent Holmes Regional Medical Center, Inc., demonstrated its entitlement to a certificate of need to construct an 84-bed acute care hospital in Viera, Brevard County, Florida.
99-003956BID  BELLSOUTH COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEMS, INC. vs DEPARTMENT OF LOTTERY  (1999)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 21, 1999
Whether the Respondent's determination that the proposal the Petitioner submitted in response to the Revised Request for Proposal No. 98/99-010/G was non-responsive is arbitrary or capricious. Whether the Respondent's determination that it would initiate contract negotiations with the only company submitting a responsive proposal in response to the Revised Request for Proposal No. 98/99-010/G and that it would award a contract to that company if the negotiations were successful is contrary to the applicable statutes, rules or policies, or the proposal specifications.Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to statute by declaring non-responsive a proposal that contained clarifications and modifications of mandatory requirements of a Request for Proposal.

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