welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  6. Matthew David Westerman
Matthew David Westerman
Matthew David Westerman
Visitors: 32
0
Bar #175404(FL)     License for 26 years
Palmetto FL

Are you Matthew David Westerman? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

9:07-bk-01191-ALP  In Re Nease  (2008)
United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida Filed: Apr. 01, 2008 Citations: 391 B.R. 470
391 B.R. 470 (2008) In re Douglas S. NEASE and Brenda M. Nease, Debtors. No. 9:07-bk-01191-ALP. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division. April 1, 2008. *471 Edward R. Miller, Gregory Champeau, Robert E. Tardif, Jr., Miller and Hollander, Naples, FL, for Debtors. ORDER ON DEBTORS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AS TO CHARLOTTE COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD (Doc. No. 83) ALEXANDER L. PASKAY, Bankruptcy Judge. THE MATTER under consideration in this Chapter 13 case of Douglas S. Nease..
Bankruptcy No. 93-11828-9P7. Adv. No. 94-96  In Re Savage  (1994)
United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida Filed: Dec. 28, 1994 Citations: 176 B.R. 614
176 B.R. 614 (1994) In re Thomas J. SAVAGE and Judith M. Savage, Debtor. FIRST USA, INC., Plaintiff, v. Thomas SAVAGE, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 93-11828-9P7. Adv. No. 94-96. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. December 28, 1994. Kevin P. O'Brien, Tampa, FL, Mark A. Cronin, Becket & Watkins, Malvern, PA, Patti W. Woodruff, Alan P. Woodruff & Associates, Cape Coral, FL, for plaintiff. Herbert A. Fried, Fort Myers, FL, for defendant. ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AL..
Bankruptcy No. 03-00717-9P7. Adversary No. 03-220  In Re Batzek  (2004)
United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida Filed: Aug. 23, 2004 Citations: 314 B.R. 464
314 B.R. 464 (2004) In re Nicholas BATZEK, III, Debtor. Linda Kay Batzek, Plaintiff, v. Nicholas Batzek, III, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 03-00717-9P7. Adversary No. 03-220. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Ft. Myers Division. August 23, 2004. Robert L. Vaughn, Ft. Myers, FL, for Debtor. *465 MEMORANDUM OPINION, FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ALEXANDER L. PASKAY, Chief Judge. The matter under consideration in this Chapter 7 case of Nicholas Batzek, III (Debtor) is the dischar..
Bankruptcy No. 86-3180-8P7, Adv. Nos. 86-513, 86-514 and 86-512  In Re Moore  (1988)
United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida Filed: Jul. 29, 1988 Citations: 89 B.R. 935
89 B.R. 935 (1988) In re Richard and Julie MOORE, Debtors. NCNB NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, v. Richard and Julie MOORE, Defendants. CARTERET SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. Richard and Julie MOORE, Defendants. ITT COMMERCIAL FINANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. Richard and Julie MOORE, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 86-3180-8P7, Adv. Nos. 86-513, 86-514 and 86-512. United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division. July 29, 1988. Larry Foyle, Tampa, Fla., for plaintiff. Sh..
15-003620  DARRELL ALFORD vs PUBLIX PHARMACY  (2015)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 23, 2015
The issue is whether Respondent, Publix Super Markets, Inc. (“Publix”), violated section 760.08, Florida Statutes (2014),1/ by discriminating against Petitioner based on his race, color, sex, and/or handicap.Under the facts of the case, grocery store was not a "public accomodation" pursuant to section 760.02(11); even if it were, Petitioner failed to prove discrimination due to race, color, sex or handicap.
12-000886  SHEKITA HILL vs SUBWAY  (2012)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Mar. 12, 2012
Whether Petitioner established that Respondent is an "employer" under the Florida Civil Rights Act (FCRA), section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes (2011),1/ in order to confer jurisdiction on the Florida Commission on Human Relations (Commission); and Whether Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent retaliated against Petitioner for filing a complaint with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), in violation of the FCRA, section 760.10(7).Petitioner did not prove employment discrimination; and Respondent did not meet the definition of an employer under the Florida Civil Rights Act.

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