Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change
Michael David Brown
Michael David Brown
Visitors: 36
0

Free initial consultation

Bar #727180(FL)     License for 37 years; Member in Good Standing
Riviera Beach FL

Are you Michael David Brown? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

93-9191  Haynes v. Caye & Company, Inc.  (1995)
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: May 19, 1995 Citations: 52 F.3d 928
52 F.3d 928 67 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1537 , 67 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1755 , 66 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 43,559, 32 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 268 Patricia HAYNES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W.C. CAYE & COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee. No. 93-9191. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. May 19, 1995. Robert C.D. McDonald, Leslie Elizabeth Stewart, Norcross, GA, for appellant. David Michael Brown, Smith Gambrell & Russell, Sandra Kaye, Ellen E. Brown, Lisa L. Ballentine, Atlanta, GA, for appe..
11-005316  BUILT RIGHT CONSTRUCTION INC. vs PALM BEACH COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD  (2011)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Oct. 14, 2011
Whether, in accordance with Section 4.1(l)(f), State Requirements for Education Facilities (SREF), Respondent has grounds to ratify the Superintendent's determination that Petitioner is delinquent, so as to be disqualified for a period of one year from bidding on any construction contracts with Respondent that require certification.One year delinquency for school contractor guilty of substantial deviation from time schedule, after written notice, without justifiable case and substantial and repeated failure to pay subcontractors without justifiable cause.
00-003823N  SANDRA NAP BRITT AND FRANK BRITT, ON BEHALF OF AND AS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS OF DAVID BRITT vs FLORIDA BIRTH-RELATED NEUROLOGICAL INJURY COMPENSATION ASSOCIATION  (2000)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Sep. 14, 2000
At issue is whether David Britt, a minor, qualifies for coverage under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan. If so, whether the notice requirements of the Plan were satisfied.Petitioners` motion to amend final order and/or for rehearing denied because Petitioners acknowledged newly discovered evidence would not alter the conclusion that the infant had suffered a birth-related neurological injury.

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