welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Find a Lawyer
  7. Neale E Montgomery
Neale E Montgomery
Neale E Montgomery
Visitors: 19
0
Bar #258342(FL)     License for 46 years; Member in Good Standing
Fort Myers FL

Are you Neale E Montgomery? Claim this page now or Cliam yourself lawyer page

82-5622  Daniel J. Morgan v. Roland Q. Roberts, Tim Woobury, Nick Isenberg, Greg Smith and Ed Clement, Movants-Appellants  (1983)
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: Apr. 11, 1983 Citations: 702 F.2d 945
702 F.2d 945 9 Media L. Rep. 1486 Daniel J. MORGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roland Q. ROBERTS, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Tim Woobury, Nick Isenberg, Greg Smith and Ed Clement, Movants-Appellants. No. 82-5622. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. April 11, 1983. Smith, Carta, Ringsmuth & Kluttz, Steven Carta, Fort Myers, Fla., for movants-appellants. Rider, Bennett, Egan & Arundell, Timothy R. Thornton, Kevin C. Dooley, Minneapolis, Minn., Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, Patri..
82-2613  Coleman v. State  (1983)
District Court of Appeal of Florida Filed: Jun. 22, 1983 Citations: 433 So. 2d 627
433 So. 2d 627 (1983) Jack C. COLEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. No. 82-2613. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District. June 22, 1983. Jerry Hill, Public Defender, Bartow, and Allyn Giambalvo, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant. Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Frank Lester Adams, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee. BOARDMAN, Acting Chief Judge. Jack C. Coleman appeals his judgment and four-year sentence for burglary, contending that the tr..
10-002988GM  CEMEX CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS FLORIDA, LLC, OLD CORKSCREW PLANTATION, LLC, OLD CORKSCREW PLANTATION V, LLC, TROYER BROTHERS FLORIDA, INC., AND FFD LAND COMPANY, INC. vs LEE COUNTY  (2010)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jun. 01, 2010
The issues to be determined in this case are whether the amendments to the Lee County Comprehensive Plan that were adopted through Ordinance Nos. 10-19, 10-20, 10-21 and Remedial Ordinance No. 10-43 ("Plan Amendments") are "in compliance," as that term is defined in section 163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2011).1/Petitioners failed to prove beyond fair debate that the plan amendments adopted by Lee County are not in compliance.
95-000098GM  DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS vs LEE COUNTY  (1995)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed: Jan. 11, 1995
Ultimately at issue in this case is whether certain comprehensive plan amendments, adopted by Lee County Ordinance No. 94-30, are "in compliance" with Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes. As reflected in the Preliminary Statement, many of the subordinate issues raised by parties seeking to have the plan amendments found to be "not in compliance" have been withdrawn, and others have been stricken as not timely raised or for other reasons. The remaining issues are addressed in this Recommended Order.Amendments deleted overlay used to settle case on 89 plan, leaving plans % district's or other objectionable measures in mixed use categories and overall located number.
87-002144  FLORIDA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION vs. STEPHEN HAUTALA, ARLENE GUENNEL, AND ALMAR REALTY, INC.  (1987)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Latest Update: Feb. 12, 1988
Broker guilty of fraud/culpable negligence for forging seller's signature on contract and listing and not independently measuring room size.

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